Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

The Best Question of the Night

fizz

1) Last night’s mayoral debate at KCTS didn’t come with the fireworks we saw at the KING 5 debate on Wednesday. But there was some noteworthy stuff.

First,  some quick policy differences between the candidates.

Joe Mallahan said he was for Council Member Tim Burgess’ panhandling proposal: No panhandling near cash machines or when people are getting out of their cars.  Mike  McGinn said he  does not support it.

Mallahan said it’s “reasonable” to focus on cash machines and getting out of cars. McGinn said its too broad because there are ATMs and parking spots all over downtown and the de facto result would be to “outlaw panhandling” … and “give the police too much discretion.”

They also differed on the head tax (a tax on businesses to fund transit). Mallahan, saying we tax businesses too much in Seattle, is for repealing it, and said, “Yeah, it’s kind of Republican, but you know what? We need jobs in this city …. “  McGinn said: “Giving out business tax breaks, that was George Bush’s strategy, and that didn’t work.”

They also, obviously, differ on the tunnel. On this debate, McGinn said he will not proceed on the tunnel if the city has to pay cost overruns—which he estimated could be $2 billion and cost every tax payer $15,000.  Mallahan said we have to “move forward” on the tunnel.

Re: the cost overruns, Seattle Times editorial board member Joni Balter (one of the moderators last night) asked Mallahan point blank if he would move forward even if Seattle had to pay the overruns (a question McGinn had asked Mallahan the night before at KING 5 without getting a straight answer.) Mallahan was clearer on this last night, saying he would fight to remove the provision in the state law that says Seattle does have to pay the overruns.

Mallahan said: “The state constitution is clear, the state cannot impose on a municipality, the cost of a state highway project. We need to get rid of it.”

McGinn seized on that, saying it was “interesting” that Mallahan was willing to litigate on that point, but wasn’t willing to litigate to defend a proposed gun ban in city parks nor take a position on a current city court battle against local businesses to complete the Burke-Gilman trail, adding that Mallahan “didn’t have his priorities straight.”

debatepanel

Enrique Cerna, Deborah Wang, and Joni Balter question the candidates.

The best question of the night came from KUOW’s Deborah Wang who asked: “If you only serve one term and could only accomplish one thing,  what would that be?”

Mallahan won this round with the best answer of the night. McGinn fielded the question first and gave a generic answer about making sure the citizens of Seattle feel like government is their partner in solving problems.

Mallahan said: “That every citizen of Seattle who chooses to have a job has a job and that that jobe be a living wage job.”

Part of why Mallahan’s answer on this was so good was because it put a policy marker on a theme he’d been emphasizing all night, his “social justice ethic”;  he had made a point of citing African American unemployment stats in his opening statement (20 percent as opposed to the general 10 percent in the city), and referenced his working class Catholic roots several times.

Mallahan, however, botched another big moment. Each candidate was allowed two “challenges” (when they’d get to circumvent the moderators and directly question each other on something the other one had said.) Right after McGinn finished making a strong statement about how he supported gun control in city parks and Mallahan did not, Mallahan used his challenge to rewind to something McGinn had said in passing several rounds earlier—that Mallahan had once worked for Republican U.S. Senator Slade Gorton.

The audience had likely long forgotten the dig, but Mallahan brought it up, saying, seemingly out of the blue: “Okay Mike, I’ll come clean, I did … at the age of 19, for two months, I worked for Senator Slad Gorton, and he is a Republican.” Mallahan went on to explain that when he was 13, Father James Mallahan (his grandfather?) told him that the Democrats were the good guys, and that he’s been a Democrat ever since, organizing and door belling for Obama and getting elected as a Kerry delegate.

Pleased with himself, he said, “that was fun,” and holding up the “challenge” card he said, “I might want to double down.”

Mallahan’s challenge ended up working to McGinn’s advantage, who shot back: “I appreciate that Joe calls himself a lifelong Democrat and took a two month break off to work for Slade Gorton. But… what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power … I remember when we were in the earlier forums Joe, and in your closing statement you said that you were a threat to the status quo in Seattle. Well after the primary election ended the satus quo has moved in and they’ve become your advisers and your funders … I have never seen a candidate go from idealistic outsider to a campaign run by the status quo in that amount of speed.”

At that, KCTS moderator Enrique Cerna held up a “challenge” card and asked Mallahan sarcastically, “Do you want to double down now? I don’t know.”

After the debate McGinn took his “challenge” cards home as souvenirs.

You can watch the debate here.

2) Late yesterday, Erica posted a major story on the Viaduct. Read it here.

This morning’s Morning Fizz brought to you by Fuse.

fuse3


  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    I think today’s Morning Fizz headline should be:

    The Indignation of Mad Mike McGinn
    A poem in the style of Robert W. Service.

    Subtitled – “I just can’t believe, that I’m getting beat, by this stuttering exec named Joe.”

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Transpo guy

    @1, putting the two items together, I’d say the Morning Fizz headline should : Mallahan willing to let Seattle taxpayers take it up the ass from a WSDOT determined to build a tunnel at all costs.

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.


    what being a Democrat means is that you stand up for people against power

    So is that what Mike McGinn was doing at Stokes Lawrence?

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Michael M.

    @2 -

    What’s so wrong about taking it up the ass? Are you homophobic? ;-)

  • Paul Pierce

    Where is the article on secret, fanatical, stealth right-wing Republican Dow Constantine??!

    His close association with GOP Chairman Luke Esser is breaking news. Are you really not going to report how Constantine orchestrated the greatest financial crisis in King County history in order to close down public health clinics and advance his anti-choice agenda without outing himself as a secret, anti-choice Republican??

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @3,

    We covered some that here:
    http://publicola.net/?p=11631

    … Breaking the news that McGinn was an attorney for T-Mobile, trying to scale back consumer rights.

    Of course, Mallahan was a VP at T-Mobile…

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @2 Transpo guy

    How about: Mike McGinn – Will He or Won’t He Build It? Does Mike Even Know?

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Michael M.

    @6

    Oh, I don’t care that he represented T-Mobile specifically. I just think it’s kind of funny that he talks like that, while working as a civil defense attorney.

    I guess I am a bit biased, working as a Plaintiff PI Paralegal (but, I swear, not the ambulance chaser type). I have a general distrust of corporate attorneys.

    Of course, I’m probably just jealous…I know what defense paralegals make…bastards.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    YEs, saying I want every Seattleite to have a job is a nice sound bite, but Joe Mallahan has done NOTHING in our civic life in Seattle, except run for office (and spending money on consultants who’ve prepped him to have that answer).

    He’s never fought for jobs before.

    In contrast, McGinn fought for parks, he fought on transpo issues, he fought for his neighborhood, he as activist in Sierra Club, etc.

    He had a better suit on, he looked presseed not so rumply, it’s a good look for him; Maybe in the next debatehe he’ll have shoes that aren’t ten years old?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @9 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Using abolutes like NOTHING and never discredit your argument.

    And more voters will see/hear the sound bites than saw any of the debates.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • http://gomezticator.livejournal.com/tag/2009+election Gomez

    Too many arguments defending McGinn aren’t about McGinn’s quals but about attacking Mallahan and how McGinn is inherently good because he is not Mallahan.

    There’s no denying Mallahan’s shortcomings, but just because he does doesn’t mean McGinn doesn’t have several of his own. “McGinn is a good candidate because Mallahan is a bad one,” is not a smart argument. That line of “reasoning” didn’t get Al Gore, Darcy Burner or John Kerry elected, and it almost cost Christine Gregoire the governor’s office in not one, but two easily winnable elections.

    Stop with the fallacious reasoning than Mallahan being bad is a reason McGinn is good. Build credibility with credible arguments. There are better arguments for Mike McGinn’s candidacy than going back to Mallahan’s problems, because Mike McGinn has plenty of problems of his own.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Michael M.

    @11 – and it’s working so well in the County Exec race.

    @9 – when you say “[fighting] on transpo issues” – I am seriously confused. The Roads and Transit measure, I know he was against that, but both he AND O’Brien say they led the charge. I know O’Brien has said that he worked with the pro-R&T folks after that election, and they worked for the plan that passed a year later (I can’t recall if McGinn also gets credit for that).

    Then he spent an entire campaign campaigning against a jobs creating public project (the tunnel).

    How many employees did McGinn hire/fire/supervise/manage at Great City?

    And on the parks levy – again, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he almost drive that into the ground?

    As for Mallahan – when it comes to jobs, he has experience in helping a business grow. That creates jobs. I’m sure you’ll attack this line of reasoning, but I’m just saying, is all.

    At this point, what really matters is who is best suited to manage the city, and who has the temperament to do so effectively. McGinn’s little angry, New York accent laden outbursts last night do nothing to indicate that he has the temperament to be an effective mayor.

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Hihankara

    @1 Stacy, Stacey, Stacie -

    Will you please, please publish a book of poetry? We have every other kind of Nerd here, how about a PoetryNerd? Just think of the frufru theme music you’d inspire! And oh! The Odes to ObamaNerd! And a sonnet on the Wrath of Ivan the Snide!

    Josh, are you listening???

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @11 Gomez

    I know I’ve posted something similar recently but The Political Brain by Drew Weston provides his theories on what Gore and Kerry should have done to beat Bush. I think his suggestions would surprise most of the regular commenters here.

    McGinn ran a brilliant primary race. He’s really lost his way in the general.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • WearsSocksWithSandals

    @ 11. Gomez
    +1.

    @ 9. Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    No way. Both of those guys had crappy suits on and crappy shoes. Jesus, where do they shop at, Sears or
    Men’s Wearhouse? Strictly two for one suits.
    Hello? Wives of both guys? Dress
    your man better, for crying out loud.

    Hutchinson, now she looks good with her St. John’s
    pantsuits and accessories. Much appreciated.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • BombasticMo

    Did no one else get weirded out when Mallahan told us that he values the support of Africans?

    Close to his “Hello My Brothers and Sisters” entrance at one of his South Seattle speaking engagements.

    I think McGinn was ahead for every round save that where he answered the what will have been your accomplishment in four rounds piece – that was way to vague and useless.

    Other than that, he was on top of his game.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @13 Hihankara

    I don’t know. Poetry parodies are a lot of work and I see the “Indignation of the PubliCola Editorial Staff” anytime they revealed that there are actually people that make a six figure salaries.

    This PoetryNerd thing can’t pay very well.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Chris Stefan

    @11
    The problem is many Mallahan supporters resort to the same thing where they say the reason to vote for Joe is because he isn’t Mike McGinn.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Timothy

    Would some enterprising journalist do at least a tiny bit of follow-up regarding Mallahan’s claims about his community organizing work in Chicago? I mean, jeez, the guy trots out that damn line about being “trained in community organizing by the industrial areas foundation, the same organization that trained Obama” as one of his primary qualifications for Mayor.

    But, what did that training consist of? How old was he? How long was he there? Was it like a 2-hour course that he went to on a Saturday morning?

    It’s stunning to me how little the Press has been researching the background.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Michael M.

    @19

    From Wikipedia:

    The national IAF conducts 10-day intensive leadership training programs several times a year, and also has a 90-day organizer internship program.

    I’m guessing he did the 10 day course.

  • Lorraine Toly

    fyi — the “Father Mallahan” Joe Mallahan referred to was a well-known pastor at several Catholic parishes in the area, and he also helped to found Blanchet HS. Google his name and/or Holy Rosary Endowment Fund for more background info.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Francis

    Seriously, someone covering this race needs to read the amendment about the Seattle paying for cost overruns piece. It’s been way miscast as “every taxpayer in Seattle will have to pay a slice.”
    The language is clearly set up to direct a local improvement district, in that it talks about the property owners who benefit from the project. That would mean, all those people who own commercial/residential that will skyrocket in value (?) once the elevated is torn down.
    Not all taxpayers broad-brush. Seriously. Read the bills.

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Michael M.

    @22

    Reading is for squares!!!

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @22 Francis…many of us have read the bill. While you’re presenting the “spin” on what that language means, it really only says that anyone who benefits from the tunnel will pay for it. There are a lot of people on here who believe that they will benefit from the tunnel. How about you?

    And, don’t trot out the tired line that it is unenforceable anyway. This argument is much too simplistic. If you really want a taste of the nuance of the cost overruns issue, you should listen to the Dave Ross show yesterday. The specific segment of the show can be found here:

    http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2009/10/p_Dave_Ross_Show_20091022_10am.mp3

    The point is, there are a lot of legislators who don’t think they should have to pay for a fancy tunnel for Seattle, and even though this specific clause is not legal, it dooms the tunnel legislation. Why? Because those legislators will not sign off on losing funding for their own transportation projects to pay for what they see as an unnecessary project for Seattle.

    So, 1 of 2 things will happen: 1) A way will be found out to force Seattle to pay for the cost overruns or 2) the tunnel will not be built, because funds will not be found.

    New cost estimates are to be released by Jan. 2010. If the cost estimates go up 10%, this project will not get funded.

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Timothy

    @20 Michael M…

    That tells me what the IAF is doing now. Were they doing that same program 25 years ago?

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Transpo guy

    @7: the difference, as clearly stated by both candidates, is that Mallahan will support the tunnel at all costs while McGinn is willing to say no and organize the council to say no if costs get out of hand in a way that impacts Seattle taxpayers. And don’t say Mallahan will make sure the project come in on time and under budget. The mayor has no control over WSDOT.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @19 Timothy

    I think that’s a great idea to investigate Joe’s Chicago organizing. I’d also like to hear the whole story on Mike’s sidewalks in Greenwood claims.

    @21 Lorraine Toly

    Father James Mallahan is Joe’s uncle (brother of Joe’s father).

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Timothy

    @27 Great. We agree.

    The secondary question to researching their specific claims is to draw a line between what they’ve done in the past to how it has influenced the course of their lives. In other words, did they put their experiences into practice?

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 – Your analysis on the political give-and-take about WHY that amendment hung on the viaduct budget is on point.
    But the part about the language referring to a LID isn’t ‘spin.’ Judy Clibborn explicity said that was the intent of that amendment at the time it hung in the House.
    I don’t care about the unenforceability argument in any case. It’s obviously a message-sender.
    And you’re correct, again, that one of those two things will happen. But I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that getting “Seattle” to pay for it will be a LID on the property owners in the tunnel area.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Francis

    @24 also, I don’t live in Seattle, so I won’t personally be paying for the overruns in any event.
    However, as someone who purchases gasoline in Washington state, I’ve helped pay for the state share on the front end.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @26 Transpo guy

    If the city must insist on an oversight role in this project regardless of the outcome of the cost overruns issue. The city must insist on a more project co-management IF in the end city taxpayers are accountable for cost overruns.

    WSDOT and the Legislature are not going to want Seattle City government co-managing this project and this more intrusive oversight (with the constitutional issues) will provide leverage to the city to get the cost overrun provisions removed.

    Mallahan is committing to is finding a way to make this work. McGinn is hedging.

    None of us can predict the future but after eight years we have an agreement that will allow us to move forward. There will likely be future challenges for this (or any) project that good managers will try to anticipate and manage at the appropriate time.

    And btw. You’re speaking in absolutes again. “At all cost”, “no control of WSDOT.” Put politely, I think your statements are disingenuous.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Gidge

    @16–Don’t forget his awkward “si se puede” remark on the Wednesday debate.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @32 Gidge

    I think its kinda endearing that Mallahan is a little awkward. Isn’t it funny how people can see the same thing and interpret it so differently.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @31 My edits. arg! (Please Josh, preview/edit??!!)

    Delete the opening If, start with “The …

    Next sentence, “The city must insist on a project co-management approach IF …”

    Remember the Golden Rule. If in this is going to be partially funded by Seattle taxpayer gold, Seattle gets to make some of the rules.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @28 Timothy

    Great angle. I think they both did. One very publicly, one much more privately.

    But I don’t want to spoil the story.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @34,

    I’m worried about my OWN typos. My God. Did you see my first draft on this thing.

    For starters, I had Joe supporting the head tax instead of supporting repeal of the head tax.

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Michael M.

    @33 -

    That’s one of MY reasons for liking Joe, and you can’t have it!!!!!

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Timothy

    @29 Francis…really, listen to the Dave Ross show I linked above.

    Judy Clibborn states explicitly that she put the cost overruns into the legislation as a maneuver to get enough votes, even though she knew it was illegal. She said that she was certain that everyone understood it was illegal, but it just made them feel comfortable.

    …enter Joe Kastama. He was one of those votes who was appeased by the Clibborn amendment. He states on the show that he and his colleagues do not intend, under any circumstances, to pay more. In other words, absent that language going forward, they will not support the project.

    Regarding the LID. You speak as though this is a simple fix. It’s not. First, the State cannot mandate an LID. And, what’s more, it will remain illegal for the City or any entity other than the State to pay for a State project. If an LID gets enacted (which will be politically extremely difficult), then a lawsuit will be filed to challenge whether a LID can force taxpayers to pay for a State project.

    There’s no magic fix for the funding of the tunnel. The arguments that it will all get taken care of “down the road” are either specific lies or wishful thinking.

    Either way, this whole fiasco is a disaster of legislation. The obstruction here is not McGinn or anyone else who opposes it, it is the manner in which this tunnel is being sold to us through illegal and unethical legislating.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    if it takes a Seattle l.i.d., why in the world would anyone think that a subset of Seattle property owners would vote to shoulder all cost overruns of a DBT?

    Say it’s owners within a quarter of a mile. They’re risking tremendous liability because the pool is so small. Say it’s property owners within a mile, or within 3 miles; this includes so many people who don’t care, it would never pass.

    How about this: defining now who is in the subset of suckers, I mean propety owners, who will be stuck with cost overruns?

    Oh wait if we told everyone in Capitol Hill and Eastlake and Queen Anne it’s just them and it adds huge risk to owning a house there, they will revolt. On the other hand if it’s just those property owners whose views are benefitted, then the per owner cost is so high all their bankers will pull their loans and the skyrocketing taxes will create a wasteland as all the LLCs just go bellyup.

    And, um, don’t pay the overruns.

    There’s a dead end coming up and there’s no light at the end of the cost overrun tunnel…..

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Pete

    McGinn keeps touting his Pro-parks levy work. I voted for it and think it was great that it passed with almost 60% of the vote. But I’d love to have a paid job getting levies passed in Seattle, it’s a job where any idiot could succeed. Since 2001, Seattle voters have passed $953 million in levies (for parks, housing, Pike Place Market, education, fire stations, transportation, etc.). How many levies has Seattle rejected in say the last 20 years?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Stacy, Stacey, Stacie

    @39 Don’t Deep Bore Me!

    Maybe you should hire Kelly Ackers to do a scary video for you?

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @38, we’re just talking past each other.
    The amendment language isn’t some magical bulwark that prevents the state from paying more for the tunnel project. It’s just a message-sender. Right before an election year I might add.
    The eventual tradeoff for key votes will not be, “LID language or no more money.”
    It will be, “State and Seattle figure out some cost-share on the overage, PLUS all of these projects in my district, or no more money.”

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Francis

    @39 admittedly I’m no expert on LIDs. But isn’t there some way the local government could just create one and impose it?
    The property owners don’t have to agree to tax themselves, do they? It’s not a levy-lid-lift or anything. It’s a totally new taxing district.
    Seriously, I don’t know.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Don’t Deep Bore Me

    Well the other guy added the point that the state can’t even force a l.i.d. vote to take place. I don’t know if the city can force it either.

    So this whole DBT “plan” is a mirage resting on the fantasy that local property owners near the benefitted area, whatever that is, will start an l.i.d. proces themselves!

    Right, I can just see the denizens of Newmark Tower and Marketplace North going door to door amongst the condo owners….”hi there, would you like to share responsibibility for DBT cost overruns? Your property taxes JUST MIGHT GO UP A BIT. YEs, sign here. Oh yes of course we’re going to ask the condo owners in Belltown, too, I am sure they will all sign up…benefits in Ballard? why not, we’ll go up to Canal Square right after this…surely they will propose to tax themselves, too!”

    What a pie in the sky fantasay. Hardly “efficient, competent management” of a project..resting it on hopes like that.

    The whole thing is a shell game. Simes is gone, NIckels is gone, and Gregoire will be gone too by the time any of this is seen for what it really is:

    a fake decision, a decision to not decide. But one that looks like a decision.

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Francis

    @44 you miss my point. Can’t a local government just create a lid with a vote of the board?
    They don’t have to rely on the taxed to volunteer for it, do they?

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • Susanneston

    @7, @31 When precisely asked by McGinn in the King 5 debate, “If the state legislature does not remove the provision of state law requiring Seattle to pay all cost overruns on the viaduct tunnel replacement, should Seattle proceed with the project?”

    Joe Mallahan responded, “Michael, I think I’ve been crystal clear on this the answer is yes.”

    Mallahan does not care if Seattle has to pay for the cost overruns. He does not care how expensive this would be for Seattle families – he just wants to give his rich backers their tunnel.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    I like the part where Enrique Cerna asks, about the state-wide gang problem “are you going to put more emphasis on enforcement, or intervention”.
    Mallahan answered the question, outreach and job programs for youth, then he jabbed at McGinn about turning the selection of the next police chief into a “political stunt”.
    McGinn did not answer the question at first, and got all wrapped around the “stunt” jab, and took another run at the Rainier Club and where were you the Monday night when Mike was there in SE Seattle, more Police Chief politicizing talk.
    Mallahan challenges, list off prominent “African” American endorsements.

    Enrique Cerna say he would like to go back to McGinn because he never answered the question. McGinn asks for the question to be reread to him. The fist thing out of McGinn’s mouth is still not the answer, he turns his flush pink face at Mallahan and barks, “Joe, if you are going to be honest about it, stop saying I am politisizing public safety, because it is a too important issue for politics”.

    Fact is that McGinn did have a little press conference, did attempt to make political hay out of the preference to hire your own police chief. It was a stunt, and McGinn is protesting a little too much, looking like an angry bear.

    He was visibly angry, and clearly not in control, re-using the moderator’s question to attack McGinn and putting off answering the question.
    An lawyer’s temperment, not an executive position temperment.

    The rah, rah, kool-aid drinkers might enjoy the attack dog schtick, but that is not going to win an election.
    He looks like an asshole, because he is an asshole.

    You have to hand it to Mallahan, he spun McGinn up, and remained calm. He is not a great speaker, but that was clearly a tactic, and it worked. McGinn was a hot head.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    @47…everything about a political campaign is political. Everything could be labeled a stunt. The charge itself is a stunt. Your argument is circular.

  • Timothy

    Oh…and btw, I meant to post this sooner.

    I’ve created an online petition for any of you Tunnel supporters who are willing to state that you benefit from the tunnel and are willing to be added to the list of those who will be on the hook for the cost overruns.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/

    StaceyX3? Mr. Baker? Others. I expect you’ll run right over and sign, right? I’m surprised that Mr. Mallahan hasn’t signed the petition yet.

  • Timothy

    Oh…and btw, I meant to post this sooner.

    I’ve created an online petition for any of you Tunnel supporters who are willing to state that you benefit from the tunnel and are willing to be added to the list of those who will be on the hook for the cost overruns.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/

    StaceyX3? Mr. Baker? Others. I expect you’ll run right over and sign, right? I’m surprised that Mr. Mallahan hasn’t signed the petition yet.

  • Timothy

    Oh…and btw, I meant to post this sooner.

    I’ve created an online petition for any of you Tunnel supporters who are willing to state that you benefit from the tunnel and are willing to be added to the list of those who will be on the hook for the cost overruns.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/

    StaceyX3? Mr. Baker? Others. I expect you’ll run right over and sign, right? I’m surprised that Mr. Mallahan hasn’t signed the petition yet.

  • Timothy

    Oh…and btw, I meant to post this sooner.

    I’ve created an online petition for any of you Tunnel supporters who are willing to state that you benefit from the tunnel and are willing to be added to the list of those who will be on the hook for the cost overruns.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/

    StaceyX3? Mr. Baker? Others. I expect you’ll run right over and sign, right? I’m surprised that Mr. Mallahan hasn’t signed the petition yet.

  • Timothy

    Oh…and btw, I meant to post this sooner.

    I’ve created an online petition for any of you Tunnel supporters who are willing to state that you benefit from the tunnel and are willing to be added to the list of those who will be on the hook for the cost overruns.

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/

    StaceyX3? Mr. Baker? Others. I expect you’ll run right over and sign, right? I’m surprised that Mr. Mallahan hasn’t signed the petition yet.

  • Gidge

    @33–I think there’s different types of awkwardness. The awkwardness that you see when he says things like “my brothers and sisters” or “si se puede” comes across as him being fake.

  • Gidge

    @33–I think there’s different types of awkwardness. The awkwardness that you see when he says things like “my brothers and sisters” or “si se puede” comes across as him being fake.

  • Gidge

    @33–I think there’s different types of awkwardness. The awkwardness that you see when he says things like “my brothers and sisters” or “si se puede” comes across as him being fake.

  • Gidge

    @33–I think there’s different types of awkwardness. The awkwardness that you see when he says things like “my brothers and sisters” or “si se puede” comes across as him being fake.

  • Gidge

    @33–I think there’s different types of awkwardness. The awkwardness that you see when he says things like “my brothers and sisters” or “si se puede” comes across as him being fake.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • Gidge

    @40–I hope you’re not suggesting that Mike was paid for his work on the parks levy, because that definitely isn’t the case (it doesn’t sound like that’s what you’re saying).

    The big thing about the most recent parks levy was both getting it on the ballot and getting it passed, despite Nickels’ opposition. When everything started, the council was very hesitant about putting it on the ballot, particularly because it was going to compete with some of their pet levies.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr.Baker

    @48, I now see why you are so confused.
    Dciding that you want to hire your own employee is political in some way, but you are missing the nuance of the point. Mallahan really does want to focus on public safety, having some control over who you hire to go-do some of that work is an administrative and policy impacting hire. It was a personal choice.
    Turning that preference into an attack on Mallahan for not being serious for not following Nickels group of resume gatherers, as somehow being not serious about public safety, holding a press conference, and making part of your campaign schtick is purely political, serving no other purpose.

    And that is why McGinn is a loser. Every tiny thing is not a campaign event to bash you opponent. Always attacking, even when there is nothing there, makes Mike look less like a leader, and more like an asshole.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Susanneston

    @52 Mallahan seems to think that adding police and drilling the tunnel is the answer to all of Seattle’s problems. In one interview he touted how his neighborhood in Chicago was safe because he could see a cop on every corner. I for one don’t want to live like that.

    McGinn is right to say that we need do do a lot more than increase the number of police, we need to get at the root of the problem, help improve our schools, help keep kids in school and provide an entry into the job market for young people.

  • Pete

    @51, yes I am, actually. Wasn’t he executive director of Great City at the time? And, wasn’t Great City hired by the council to run the pro-parks levy campaign? That was my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Pete

    @51, yes I am, actually. Wasn’t he executive director of Great City at the time? And, wasn’t Great City hired by the council to run the pro-parks levy campaign? That was my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Pete

    @51, yes I am, actually. Wasn’t he executive director of Great City at the time? And, wasn’t Great City hired by the council to run the pro-parks levy campaign? That was my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Pete

    @51, yes I am, actually. Wasn’t he executive director of Great City at the time? And, wasn’t Great City hired by the council to run the pro-parks levy campaign? That was my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Pete

    @51, yes I am, actually. Wasn’t he executive director of Great City at the time? And, wasn’t Great City hired by the council to run the pro-parks levy campaign? That was my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong.

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Charla Neuman

    Hey, Josh,
    Should we mark this date on our calendars? The day you and I agreed? ;-) I can’t believe you kept me in suspense about knowing you and I went “ding! ding!” on the winning moment of the night at the same time.

    Getting you a response later to your other question. Meantime, have a good weekend, all.
    Charla

  • Jan

    @55

    Hi Carla,

    Why don’t you let Joe talk to the press himself sometime…more than the BS soundbits.

    Really, his refusal to make himself available is concerning. Is that the way he will be as mayor? Give him money and MAYBE he will meet with you?

  • Jan

    @55

    Hi Carla,

    Why don’t you let Joe talk to the press himself sometime…more than the BS soundbits.

    Really, his refusal to make himself available is concerning. Is that the way he will be as mayor? Give him money and MAYBE he will meet with you?

  • Jan

    @55

    Hi Carla,

    Why don’t you let Joe talk to the press himself sometime…more than the BS soundbits.

    Really, his refusal to make himself available is concerning. Is that the way he will be as mayor? Give him money and MAYBE he will meet with you?

  • Jan

    @55

    Hi Carla,

    Why don’t you let Joe talk to the press himself sometime…more than the BS soundbits.

    Really, his refusal to make himself available is concerning. Is that the way he will be as mayor? Give him money and MAYBE he will meet with you?

  • Jan

    @55

    Hi Carla,

    Why don’t you let Joe talk to the press himself sometime…more than the BS soundbits.

    Really, his refusal to make himself available is concerning. Is that the way he will be as mayor? Give him money and MAYBE he will meet with you?

  • Paul Pierce

    Where is the article on secret, fanatical, stealth right-wing Republican Dow Constantine??!

    His close association with GOP Chairman Luke Esser is breaking news. Are you really not going to report how Constantine orchestrated the greatest financial crisis in King County history in order to close down public health clinics and advance his anti-choice agenda without outing himself as a secret, anti-choice Republican??