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.

x close
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.

Mayor McGinn’s State of the City Address

City Hall, Opinion, Politics   February 15, 2010 at 6:30 pm Erica C. Barnett

Tomorrow afternoon at 2:00, Mayor Mike McGinn will deliver his first-annual State of the City address in council chambers at City Hall. We have no idea what he’ll say (he has a habit of a making surprise announcements), so we’re looking forward to it. It’s sure to be a departure from former mayor Greg Nickels, who was known for his almost comically predictable and scripted speeches.

We endorsed McGinn in the August primary and in November’s general. Here are a few things Josh and I would love to hear the mayor do in his speech tomorrow:

• As transit advocates, we’re inclined to agree with McGinn’s proposal to put high-capacity transit on 520. We want to hear him make a booming case for the plan.

• The City Council and the state legislature have made it clear they aren’t going to budge on the downtown tunnel—in particular, the legislature isn’t going to change the provision that makes Seattle taxpayers responsible for cost overruns. So what’s his plan going forward? We’d like to hear the final word on this. Is he still committed  to stopping the tunnel and going with the green surface/transit plan?

• During the campaign, two major themes McGinn stressed were open government and accountability. While the mayor has given citizens a lot of avenues to talk to his office, openness is a two-way street. What specific steps will he take to create real transparency in his administration over the coming year?

• Spending on the bike master plan is projected to fall nearly 70 percent short by 2017, when the bike plan is supposed to be complete. As a longtime cycling advocate, will McGinn try to boost city spending for bike infrastructure, and how, given the ongoing budget problems at the city?

• Lay out some specific criteria he’ll use in selecting a police chief—and set a deadline for the hire.

• McGinn has been lukewarm on the idea of adopting carbon neutrality as a goal for the city, saying he’d rather focus on specific goals like building transit on 520. Are steps like that enough, and is going carbon neutral a realistic goal?

• Candidly address his original plan to cut 200 managers and strategic advisor positions. Has the outcry over his proposal to cut those positions altered his plan and if so, how?




  • West Seattle Waiter

    We know why Publicola endorsed him…. they knew he would make news all the time (combination of ignorance and arrogance) always make for a great news beat to cover. And that in turn creates readers… and then most importantly creates….ADVERTISING.

    Its why the media says “Run Sarah Run”

  • Zander

    What? I have to wait until tomorrow to read my snarky comment.

    BTW. When is Publicola going to be Iphone/Safari friendly?

  • Michael G

    Will the Council Chambers be open to the public, or should I look for the speech on television?

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    “surface/transit” option looks more like “surface/pipedream”

    what transit?

    Who will pay for that transit with a 212 million dollar hole in Metro?

    I would like to have the guy that says he is not a “numbers guy” articulate the option to the degree that he demand of the tunnel.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    520 should be closed permanently. I-90 has the capacity and there's unlimited capacity if we route LINK around the U of Lake Washington through Renton.

    Seattle can no longer be “first among equals” Development of Southeast King makes far more sense…the next Bellevue is Renton.

    Renton should be a focal point where jobs and transit centers move to as its equidistant from Bellevue and Seattle and doesn't require arcane and expensive bridges and tunnels.

    High speed rapid transit around Lake Washington make bridges and tunnels unnecessary.

  • Sempervirens

    ECB, when you say you're into high-capacity transit on 520, do you mean light rail over BRT? If so, why? Is this the usual, all rail is good rail (the reheated “boys like toys” mantra) or is there some persuasive reason we should spend political capital on extending LR to 520 (because taxpayers will be so hot to approve ST III) even after ST II planning tabled that corridor as technologically challenging (i.e. way more expensive than I-90)? Enlighten me, please.

  • honeyspider

    You seem to have absolutely no understanding of transportation engineering, economics, real estate development, urban planning, or reality in general.

    Seattle is not “first among equals”. The suburbs are not equal, they're not even close. Renton is not going to be the next Bellevue and routing high speed transit around the south end of the lake would be substantially slower, more expensive and more environmentally destructive than putting it on I-90.

  • KLM

    Is it open to the public

  • JoanJ

    I am a City employee. I've been following Mr. McGinn's attempt to dislodge 200 strategic advisors and managers. I'm not a fan of his approach to working with City employees, yet I believe he is correct that there are far too many manager-level employees in some departments.

    The strategic advisor position was created to reward experts who are not managers. Retaining talent and competing with the private market is a very real issue for City government. However, I think this is a category of employee that has run afoul of the original intent.

    Strategic advisors are part of the City's executive compensation system (APEX). As such, they are compensated in a manner that is out of scale with the compensation of their peers–earning thousands of dollars more each year and receiving weeks of extra leave time–as compared to people who perform similar jobs or who may have more responsibility. This is a big problem in the City's personnel system.
    In many departments, represented employees were laid-off in large quantities, while strategic advisors and managers did not undergo the same kinds of cuts (or reclassifications). This is because directors are reluctant to remove their most trusted employees. This is human nature.

    As the Mayor initiates a new budget process, there absolutely should be a process for evaluating efficiency and management needs in each department, with incentives for reclassifications or lay-offs at the manager/strategic advisor level. I believe the strategic advisor classification should be re-evaluated in light of the City's overall compensation system.

    Personally, I know many dedicated people in the City who work very hard, far in excess of 40 hours per week…people who are smart and talented and truly committed to the work of the City. That is not the issue. The issue is that the strategic advisor classification brings a disparity to the City's compensation system that badly damages morale overall.

    McGinn is right about evaluating top-level employees. However, he needs to make sure the City can recruit and retain excellent employees. He also needs to be thoughtful in how he approaches this issue, with an eye toward equity and fairness.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    Renton has long been the hub of rail for the Lake Washington south circuit. It's amply supplied with freeways, rail, parking, retail. Imagine a giant basketball complex with a new NBA franchise (or our old one).

    The 167 corridor feeds into “Bellevue II (nee Renton)” from places south all the way to Centralia.

    The bottle necks of lakes, pennisulas and hills of Seattle are eliminated by build up this stellar south Lake Washington locus.

  • Pete_on_SR520

    ECB,

    Regional leaders made a decision years ago to build the initial light rail line to the eastside on I90. That decision does not preclude future light rail on SR 520 (nor does option A+, btw), but did affect the alternatives considered in the SR 520 DEIS. Adding light rail now does not fit with the current plan (which has cost ~$250 million already) for replacing the SR 520 bridge. Nor does it fit in with ST's plan for crossing the lake with light rail. Do you have any idea of the cost and schedule consequences of revisiting this issue for the region? This proposal, as late as it is, raises some difficult questions. For example, would the transit component be owned by ST? How would it integrate with existing transit plans on both sides of Lake Washington? Would financing the transit component need to go before local voters? ST 3? Given the urgency in replacing SR 520, [how]should ST priorities be restructured to focus on adding LR to the plan? How would such restructuring affect the pace of implementing light rail plans contained in ST 2?

    I'm a big light rail supporter, but I don't see how we build light rail across 520 in the short run without major delay to this project and many others (including the 36 added miles of LR in the ST 2 plan). It's my view that we have given ST a lot to chew on with approval of ST 2. Adding LR plans to 520 will be incredibly complicated and will likely be a drag on energy and momentum in implementing ST 2, including getting LR across I90 and serving Bellevue (which is already proving to be a political pain in the arse with the I90 crossing). I also think this issue is being used by the Montlake CC (and Murray and Peterson) to forestall option A+ and has little or nothing to do with not having LR in the immediate plans (if you read the EIS, you'll see that the project is being designed so that it is consistent with carrying light rail in the future, should the region, at some time in the future, decide to do so).

  • Pete_on_SR520

    To Pederson and Murray in my previous comment, add Frank Chopp. It is no coincidence that the only state reps and senators in Seattle opposing A+ are also the ones who represent the Montlake neighborhood.

  • ChrisJ

    I agree with you on some issues but you are not entirely correct. Strategic Advisors are not compensated using the executive pay system. APEX stands for Accountability Pay for Executives so only executives are paid in that range.
    -
    The dedicated people you mention that work in excess of 40 hours a week are likely paid overtime at 1 1/2 times their normal rate of pay while strategic advisors, managers and executives are paid for the job nothing additional.
    -
    The extra days off that they receive are merit based and have to be earned each year.
    -
    There are many classifications at the City that make more than a lot of strategic advisors but they don't seem to be on the Mayor's “target” list. If this is about fairness and saving money then going after a small goup of people that are not unionionized is not right.

  • sarah68

    And you think everyone north of the main part of Seattle should have to travel all the way through the Seattle part of I-5 to get to I-90? Do you realize that a lot of people live north of I-90? No, obviously not.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    The distance between 520 and I-90 is three miles. Three miles! That's the stupidity of it. Here you have this narrow broken down bridge (520) and 3 miles away is this super wide high capacity bridge. At highway speeds 3 miles is 3 minutes. Worst case is 3 miles on either side or 6 minutes. However, removing the 520 bridge takes away the single biggest plug in traffic on both I-405 and I-5, so most will get a speed increase from not having to wait in traffic.