Primary Endorsements ’11: The Tunnel Is a Racket
Welcome to the Eat The State! endorsements for the August 16 Seattle and King County primary election. First things first: this year’s election is, as far as we’re concerned, all about The Tunnel. The most crucial item on the primary ballot is Referendum 1, the measure concerning the fate of the multi-billion-dollar deep-bore tunnel option for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Although this referendum is certainly not the only significant item on the primary ballot this year, the tunnel itself casts a very long shadow over both this election and the November general election–including and especially the races for Seattle City Council, in which all the incumbents running for re-election have staunchly supported the tunnel.
Thus, the August 16 primary is–we must repeat–all about The Tunnel: who’s been promoting it, who stands to benefit from it, who stands to lose from it, and who should lose their jobs on the Seattle City Council for supporting it.
We’ll have more to say about this below. Meanwhile, we’ll say this up front: don’t be fooled by the utopian rhetoric from the tunnel’s supporters; the tunnel is a racket. It’s been railroaded into being the “only” option, against the wishes of Seattle voters in a previous special election in 2007. The people who stand to benefit the most from it are the downtown business interests and the construction companies involved–most notably Seattle Tunnel Partners, the joint venture that recently got caught contributing mightily to Let’s Move Forward, the group lobbying for the passage of Referendum 1, and, thus, for the construction of the tunnel. The rest of us–Seattle’s commuters, transit riders, and low-income communities–stand to get royally screwed if the tunnel is constructed as planned.
On to our endorsements. Our usual caveats, as always, apply: These endorsements represent our shamelessly biased opinion; do your own research; make up your own mind. (Also, as always: we do not make endorsements for uncontested races.) Meanwhile, next time you see Seattle City Council President Richard Conlin walking down the street, be sure to ask him: “Buddy, can you spare $190 million?”
Elected Offices
King County Council, District No. 6: Long-time incumbent Jane Hague has got to go. She’s yet another local career politico (going back as far as her stint as manager of King County Elections from 1986 to 1993) whose only noteworthy civic accomplishments during her recent time in office have been her 2007 DUI arrest and the accusations against her that same year by the state Public Disclosure Commission of multiple violations of campaign-finance laws.
Her best challenger this year, Richard Mitchell, is clearly the most outstanding and progressive candidate in this race, and in this year’s local election cycle as well. A lawyer with degrees in architecture and urban planning and an eye for social justice, he’s currently first vice president of the King County Bar Association and a regent of Seattle University.
Among the progressive stances he’s taken publicly, he supports the proposed $20 car tab fee scheduled for a county council vote on August 15 which is aimed at preventing a drastic 17 percent cut in Metro bus service. (Hague, likely the deciding vote, has so far dithered on her position on the controversial fee.) Mitchell also supports marijuana legalization and marriage equality. Long story short, if elected, he would be a much-needed liberal voice on council for the increasingly liberal Eastside. Richard Mitchell.
King County Council, District No. 8: Goodspaceguy Nelson is likely familiar to long-time local voters as a long-time wacko perma-candidate. Amiable, yes, but still a wacko. This three-way primary race will likely wind up in the general election with the wacko eliminated–surprise! Meanwhile, incumbent Joe McDermott and challenger Diana Toledo are both decent, if uninspiring, choices. We’ll have more to say about them in our general election endorsements issue. Until then, skip it.
Seattle City Council, Position No. 1: Ah, Jean Godden.
Okay, okay, okay. In the past, we’ve quite snarkily criticized this noted two-term incumbent before over her policy decisions as well as her lack of qualifications for elected public office beyond her experience as a former columnist for both The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. While we’re now even more frustrated with her record after eight years in office, don’t get us wrong: we do very sincerely admire the knowledge of Seattle history and politics she’s acquired over the years. In fact, we seriously believe she’d make a great popular Seattle historian, to rival the likes of the legendary Emmett Watson. But as an elected public official, she, too, simply has got to go–now more than ever.
This year, Godden’s facing three very serious challengers: senior deputy prosecutor Maurice Classen, city transportation manager Bobby Forch, and long-time transit activist Michael Taylor-Judd. Of these three, we admire Taylor-Judd the most. He’s most noteworthy for his involvement in the (unfortunately failed) early-Aughts campaign to extend Seattle’s monorail from West Seattle to Ballard. These days, he’s the only candidate in the primary who is openly opposed to the tunnel–indeed, very passionately and articulately so. (Council candidate Brad Meacham, who will appear on the general election ballot, is also strongly opposed to the tunnel.)
At press time, we honestly don’t expect Taylor-Judd to make it past the primary. His fundraising numbers and resulting publicity have so far been far too weak for that. (Godden, meanwhile, has the slickest flyers in town–strong evidence that very wealthy people want her re-elected.) But he’s exactly the sort of smart, articulate, and progressive candidate we’d love to see on council. We’re endorsing him for encouragement at the very least, in hopes that he’ll continue to engage in Seattle city politics, and perhaps even run again for council from a position of greater strength and name recognition next time out. And if he should stage a surprise upset this year, all the better. Michael Taylor-Judd.
Seattle City Council, Position No. 9: Here’s another three-way race with a marginal candidate up against a well-funded incumbent and a worthwhile challenger. Fathi Karshie operates a one-man paralegal business and he disagrees with incumbent Sally Clark’s support for the deep-bore tunnel and for voting to pass last year’s aggressive panhandling bill. He admits that he has no plans for serious fundraising, and that he’s mostly running to bring up issues.
Meanwhile, Clark remains infamous as a do-nothing doyenne of “Seattle Nice” who has yet to take a significant stand against a misguided majority on the council. She’s also recently had the gall to describe herself as “the leading voice for affordable housing” in her voters’ pamphlet statement–a very flimsy claim apparently based on her work with new market rate housing in a new project south of Pioneer Square.
Challenger Dian Ferguson is the former head of local public-access channel SCAN-TV. Personality-wise, she’s the very assertive antithesis of Clark, and she’s spoken openly of her frustration with the “Seattle Way” of perpetual process and indecision. (Full disclosure: ETS! co-editor Geov Parrish is currently involved with Ferguson’s election campaign.) Our one caveat against her is her support for the tunnel. Nevertheless, she’d be a vast improvement over Clark, who’s shown no sign after five years on council that she’ll ever grow a political spine. Dian Ferguson.
Seattle School Board
Here, too, we find a dreadful (albeit well-funded) batch of incumbents worthy of the plankwalk. Steve Sundquist, Peter Maier, Sherry Carr, and Harium Martin-Morris are all noteworthy for having voted for pay raises and repeated contract extensions for disgraced superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson, despite the absence of actual positive results from her “Strategic Plan for Excellence,” and despite a damning state audit earlier this year. Bad incumbent, no endorsement.
Director, District No. 1 (North Seattle): In addition to his uncritical support for Goodloe-Johnson, incumbent Peter Maier said and did nothing after finding out about the misuse of $1.8 million in school funds, which resulted in a major contracting scandal within the school district and led to Goodloe-Johnson’s firing. Sharon Peaslee is the best of Maier’s challengers, and the only candidate in any of the school board races this year with a reasonable, detailed agenda for what she wants to accomplish. Sharon Peaslee.
Director, District No. 2 (Green Lake): Challenger Kate Martin, much like Sharon Peaslee, has the clearest ideas in this race (if not a detailed agenda) for what she’d do if elected. Kate Martin.
Director, District No. 3 (Northeast Seattle, U District, North Capitol Hill): There’s yet another noteworthy wacko perma-candidate in this race. Long-time ETS! readers may recall David Blomstrom for his bizarre misogynist tirades against female incumbents on the board back in the early 2000′s. He also once claimed to be running for the school board as a means of bringing Dick Cheney to justice. Enough said.
Among the remaining challengers, Michelle Buetow is the only one who talks in specifics about the changes that need to be made within Seattle Public Schools. She’s also a parent of two SPS students who’s had a long involvement in activism aimed at improving specific SPS policies. Michelle Buetow.
Director, District No. 6 (West Seattle): Like our other school board recommendations, Marty McLaren has the clearest and most specific ideas about what she’d do if elected. Marty McLaren.
Ballot Measures
King County
Proposition No. 1: This proposition, billed in the voters’ pamphlet as the “Veterans and Human Services Levy,” would renew an existing tax on property owners in King County to continue funding programs that provide needy veterans with housing, employment, and counseling services. Approve.
City of Seattle
Referendum 1: Here’s the technical basics: Referendum 1 concerns Section 6 of Ordinance Number 123542, which the Seattle City Council passed in February, thereby giving the green light to the deep-bore tunnel project. If approved, Section 6 would authorize the council to give notice to proceed with three specific agreements between Seattle and Olympia, thus commencing construction of the tunnel. Referendum 1 is unfortunately a mere advisory vote, which the council can either heed or ignore as they see fit. (Technically speaking, if it’s rejected, Section 6 will not become law, but the pro-tunnel council will likely enact another ordinance, which would in turn be subject to a potential veto and potential referendum.) So it’s important that it be rejected by as wide a margin as possible, the better to send a message to the council regarding the political consequences of ignoring the will of the voters.
Here are the reasons to reject Referendum 1: As we said above, the tunnel is a racket. It’s a vanity project whose main beneficiaries will be the downtown business interests and the construction companies who will be involved in the project. This can be demonstrated by considering who’s funding Let’s Move Forward (LMF), the campaign asking voters to approve Referendum 1. Here’s the most egregious recent example: On July 25, LMF reported to the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission that it had then raised roughly $312,000. Two of the top three funders, which each gave $25,000, are Dragados USA and Tutor Perini Corp. These are the same corporations that recently combined to form Seattle Tunneling Partners, which won a $1.09 billion contract from the state to build a significant portion of the tunnel.
In addition, the Downtown Seattle Association has contributed more than $20,000 to LMF, while another $20,000 came from the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The complete list of major contributors to LMF is a Who’s Who of downtown developers and the lawyers, bankers, and politicians who support them.
Another major reason to reject Referendum 1 involves the cost of mitigation that will be necessary–as even certain tunnel supporters have recently admitted–to deal with the extra traffic congestion that will spill out into downtown and onto I-5 as a result of commuters avoiding the prohibitive tolls that will be charged to pay for the tunnel. Tunnel advocates–including and especially LMF–have constantly referred to $190 million in funding for transit that will allegedly be part of the tunnel package. But according to Ron Posthuma at the King County Department of Transportation, “By and large [the funding is] not there.” Posthuma recently told PubliCola.net that the $190 million in question was originally part of the tunnel plan back in January 2009, but that money had depended on the state giving King County motor vehicle excise tax authority, which they did not. By continuing to claim in its campaign literature that “Seattle gets millions for transit” as part of the tunnel package, LMF are being disingenuous, if not outright lying.
The potential congestion caused by the tunnel is yet another reason to reject it. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) released by the state on July 7 thoroughly detailed the potential benefits and drawbacks of the tunnel. As reported in detail on July 19 in The Stranger, the FEIS demonstrates that traffic along the downtown waterfront, on I-5, and on downtown streets will be almost identical whether we construct the tunnel or close the viaduct and build nothing.
Many more eloquent arguments against the tunnel can be found online at protectseattlenow.org. Meanwhile, long story short, the tunnel won’t solve Seattle’s traffic problems, the city can’t afford it, and the tunnel plan provides no money for transit.
Reject the tunnel. Reject Referendum 1.
Comments
By West Seattle on August 1st, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Regarding the Joe McDermott/Diana Toledo race for King County Council District 8 – There are stark differences between the two.
Joe McDermott – Pro Tunnel, says (simply) it’s time to move forward.
Diana Toledo – Against Tunnel, says the average person can’t afford the $4-5 tolls. Sites no protection against cost over-runs (which most say there is a 40% chance of happening), Seattle and King County residents will cover this cost. Says no downtown exits will push traffic onto downtown streets causing massive gridlock.
Joe McDermott – Pro $20 Tab Tax. Says we must accept the tax or suffer drastic Metro cuts (we heard this last year from him as well).
Diana Toledo – Anti $20 Tab Tax. Says it’s a regressive tax that hits low income, senior and minority communities hardest because it takes up a larger portion of their annual earnings. Diana gives alternative ideas of how to save Metro services without harming low income communities. Says do not touch routes that serve eductional or senior service facilities, rather, look at bus routes that carry little to no traffic and consider a move to hourly service. Also, look at previous audits (which have been ignored) for cuts to duplicate management, six-figure consultants, and other waste.
These two candidates are night and day. Diana Toledo has my vote. She is articulate, idea specific, with 15 years experience thinking outside the box and problem solving in King County. Joe McDermott just doesn’t have the creativity or passion to get us out of the whole we’re in. Please Vote for Diana Toledo.
By Valerie Rose on August 2nd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
It’s good to see the ETS! endorsements, even though I am no longer a Seattle resident/voter (though I did once vote in a Philadelphia mayoral race shortly after moving from that sicty in 1978, just to help ensure that ex-police-chief-turned-mayor-major-bigot Frank Rizzo did not get reelected.)
I’m on the FUSE email list, & was appalled by their endorsements. Jean Godden? She’s not running for city historian, as ETS! pointed out. And they defended their endorsement of Sally Clark by saying ‘[Dian] Ferguson has the endorsements from several community leaders, but organizations are rallying around incumbent Sally Clark.’ Very lazy – everyone else is doing it, why should we look any further? And this is from FUSE’s ‘Progressive Voters Guide’ – a very misguided guide.
Oh, and they encourage voters to reject Prop. 1, in effect endorsing the Seattle City Council’s endorsement of the tunnel. If this constitutes their ‘progressive’ choices, I’d hate to see their ‘Retrograde’ guide.
By Rick Harlan on August 3rd, 2011 at 11:00 am
I’m writing to disagree with the ETS recommendation for Seattle School Board Position #3. Note: I’m writing the day warships come into our bay and warplanes ready to zoom overhead. And I’m writing the day after the utter failure of “representatives” to protect us nationally from the series of rip-offs that are set to continue as we suffer the unravelling of the USA as the center of a late-stage industrial growth society running out of things to exploit. So I’m in a bad mood to say the least.
If there is real point or power to voting these days, it may be locally. But even here there’s no end of money set to go into leveraging the public to vote once again for Big Things (first stadiums, one then two Seattle Center private museums, and now a near-transit-less freeway bridge and a downtown-less tunnel–both with big tolls) that will make traffic way worse and cost us more.
Where can we get some leverage?
How about starting with caring for “the youngest among us”, children. That could mean using people-power to turn over the corporate-power school board!
People, support John Dunn for school board Position #3. He’s the most trustworthy. Sure, I agree John did not make his positions super-specific in the voters guide; nor his long history teaching in Seattle schools; nor his solidartity and social justice, fighting the good fight all the way up to president in the education union, where he was pretty durn good, I know, because I saw John in person in action leading rep assemblies, union board meetings and on bargaining teams.
John has the endorsement of all the unions represented in the King Gounty Labor Council; and both of the major unions in the Seattle School District.
If we want a real alternative to corporate school board bureaucracy-bloaters who put educators last, elect activist former teachers, who know first-hand what we’re up against, like you recommend, Marty McClaren for West Seattle Position #6. And like John Dunn for Position #3.
By Tom Larsen on August 7th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
No to Kate Martin for School Board position #2
Kate has no educator experience. In addition I became active in the Greenwood Community Council precisely to counter of the activities of Kate Martin. She was the prime mover of a group of planners, architects and developers in promoting a rezone of Greenwood in which I might have lost my home. The group had contact with members of the DPD and City Council (Sally Clark) and claimed to have community support for their rezone proposal. The city acted on this “support” and went forward with the rezone process based on the group’s claims. Sally Clark even announced this support at community meeting where community members came to indicate their opposition major parts of the rezone. Kate Martin’s group did not have community support. In fact, few members of the Greenwood community had ever even heard that there had been a rezone in the works for their neighborhood for at least 6 months.
When we and other neighbors found out about their activities we had to quickly organize. We created informational materials and a petition to oppose the rezone. We canvassed our neighborhood (in and directly adjacent to the rezone). Walking door-to-door, and talking individually to our neighbors, we got over 550 signatures and contact info of neighbors who: 1) had never heard of the rezone and 2) were outraged and opposed to it. Real community support means finding out what the community really thinks. That takes real effort. Kate’s group had a blog; this was their outreach.
Kate was more than willing to misrepresent the community’s support for her rezone to the city and DPD. After two months of almost full time work, our efforts resulted in the rezone’s reduction in scope (although they won’t admit it).
I have become convinced that Kate Martin is more concerned with her own agenda than with what the community she claims to represent actually wants.
By Tom Larsen on August 7th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Seattle School Board position #2
I encourage ETS’ers to look at Jack Whelan. That he is a professor in the Foster School of Business at the UW, did not appeal to me. However, I had a chance to talk to him at a Greenwood Community Council meeting. I asked Jack Whelan about his position on education reform between the views on education represented by the film “Waiting for Superman” and education historian Diane Ravitch*. Jack’s response of “I am a Ravitchian” pleased me very much. I asked Sherry Carr the same question and she responded by saying that she was “somewhere between those two poles.” From a “Ravitchian” point of view those are not two poles as the “Waiting for Superman” crowd’s use of the term “education reform” is a euphemism for a program that has no real interest in education and their “reform” agenda is a way to take public funds and the public trust of public education for private corporate gain. So how can one, as Carr does, take a middle-of-the-road position advocating an excellent and equitable education for all (as Ravitch does) and the destruction of the same? There is no moderate position here.
Jack’s wife is a special ed teacher in Seattle Public Schools, so he should be familiar with the impossible difficulties that teachers have trying to educate in the era of high-stakes testing, NCLB and RTTT. He is opposed to the corporate-backed, privatizing “reform” agenda that is anti-union, anti-teacher and fundamentally anti-education.
For more info on Jack, Google: “Jack Whelan for School Board”
*Diane Ravitch along with Jonathan Kozol is one of the two of the most prominent intellectuals and educators critical of the reform agenda promoted by both the G. W. Bush and Obama administrations. See her speech at the Save Our Schools rally in Washington DC last weekend.
http://www.dianeravitch.com/speeches.html
Trackbacks