"...proven leadership..."

I am suspicious of politicians who claim "leadership ability."

True leaders don't have to pump things by claiming that they can "lead." They simply talk or walk in a particular direction and people follow along.

Street is in fact a decent guy, (if a bit conventional,) but I don't think that "23 years of public service" is a good advertisement. I'd much rather see someone in the legislature who had at some time actually met a payroll.

raw data - like who?

jim - any position on the sonics or the viaduct?

Jim Street: "I served on Metro’s Transit Committee where I was a leader in the development of the region’s plans for rapid transit."

This guy is talking about buses when he refers to "rapid transit," right? Maybe he also likes to call McDonald's haute cuisine. Well, what else could you expect from a fellow named "Street"?

Would you support legislation to strip the license of and/or impose criminal penalties against any pharmacist who fraudulently practices medicine by withholding prescription medication for "moral reasons"?

Jim Street a a past council member - and is the only one anybody I know remembes....ie. retired. He is as good as he says he is. The real deal.

I did not know he was a Viet Nam eara vet. I am impressed by his savvy. No one will lead him by the ear.

Jim - tell us about your work for and ideas on civil rights, abortion, and the death penalty?

Your links to the gay community, and how you would plan to operate in Oly?

The new bus / tax idea from Sims?

Its a dogfight race and this is tough slog - how do you build support and consensus?

Who is giving you money?

Hi Jim.

Question: Special Objective Areas. You pioneered them while on the City Council. They made it difficult for affordable housing developers to build in the south end, but did nothing to open up the north end to affordable housing. Now the average price of a house in Seattle is hovering around $400,000, and displacement in central and south Seattle has only accelerated over the last 15 years. How was this promoting racial and economic justice?

Jim - interested in your vote in favor of The Teen Dance Ordinance. How do you justify that? As or more important is where you currently stand on youth related issues especially concerning disenfranchised youth.

Seems like most candidates have similar positions on the big issues in the race. How do you differentiate yourself from the others?

It is true that years ago I voted for the Teen Dance Ordinance. But today I would not vote for it knowing the negative impact it had on the music community. If I had a chance I would have worked in favor of and supported the All Ages Dance Ordinance which has been a very successful compromise ordinance.
The teen dance ordinance was approved unanimously with little organized opposition. Perhaps a better measure involved the poster ban ordinance which passed the council 7-2. I was one of only two votes against it. Similarly I was one of only two votes against the boom box ordinance which was specifically targeted against young black men carrying boom boxes. Similarly I proposed and found money to divert graffiti artists into the creation of graffiti murals under the supervision of a professional artist. I thought that was a more creative and productive approach to building on their talents and interests.
I am aware of the Mayor's Office of Film and Music's Economic Impact Study and will work at a state level to create more opportunities for music businesses in Washington State and find ways to support artists. I believe the music community is a vital part of Seattle and Washington State.

“Seems like most candidates have similar positions on the big issues in the race. How do you differentiate yourself from the others?�
There is a difference between giving support to an issue or knowing something about it or even voting for it and carrying the water to make it happen. As a councilmember, as a judge and as the director of a juvenile justice project I have carried the water again and again to make things happen on tough issues.
I proposed and then lead the first City Council Committee on Public Education which led directly to the passage of the Families & Educations levy.
I proposed the Metro 1% for Arts program and then chaired the Metro Arts Committee for eight years to make sure it got a strong start.
As a King County Superior Court Judge for four years I gained gained a broad perspective on how our civil and criminal laws apply to the real world. In juvenile court I had a chance to see what makes young offenders tick and to appreciate their potential to lead productive lives.
As the Director of Reinvesting in Youth I raised over $.2.5 million to increase the the quantity and quality of prevention services for juvenile justice involved youth and their families. I drafted and then lobbied the “Reinvesting in Youth “ bill through the legislature to provide for the reinvestment in prevention of the savings from reduced incarceration. The bill was signed by the Governor 2 weeks ago.
I lead the Seattle delegation to establish the policies that regulate growth in King County and then played the leading role in mobilizing the regional coalition that brought it to a good conclusion. That‘s one of the reasons that I have been endorsed by the Board Chair and Exec. Director of Futurewise, the State’s leading Growth Management Advocacy organization, and the former chair and executive director of Transportation Choices Coalition, the leading advocate for transit in the state. They know that I have the knowledge and the commitment and the skills and the relationships to carry the water on these issues.
There may be similarities on some of the issues, but there is a clear difference when it comes to experience and proven effective leadership.

“Would you support legislation to strip the license of and/or impose criminal penalties against any pharmacist who fraudulently practices medicine by withholding prescription medication for ‘moral reasons’?
Yes. I would strip their license. The individual seeking the prescription gets to makes those decisions.

“Jim - tell us about your work for and ideas on civil rights, abortion, and the death penalty?
Your links to the gay community, and how you would plan to operate in Oly?
Who is giving you money?�
As a white, heterosexual male I believe it is my job as a human being and a legislator, not just to vote for civil rights but to observe, call out and lead on these issues. I have observed that too often African Americans have to carry the water on race, women have to carry the water on sexism and gays have to take the lead on homophobia. There are many things that they are in the best position to say, but there many things that you and I are in the best position to say. Race and social justice will be an important piece of my campaign message and of my personal priorities whether or not I am elected.
I will support gay marriage. I oppose the death penalty. (As a judge in criminal court I saw that the 3 strikes law can lead to terrible results in many cases.) And I will defend a woman’s right to choose.

I have never received significant dollars from special interests. The first organization I joined was Common Cause, and the first bill I introduced as a new councilmember was contribution limits and public funding of city campaigns. (It passed 5-4). I will push hard for public funding of campaigns in Olympia.

My money comes overwhelmingly from people who have been my supporters over the years and new people who know my recent work.

“Hi Jim.
Question: Special Objective Areas. You pioneered them while on the City Council. They made it difficult for affordable housing developers to build in the south end, but did nothing to open up the north end to affordable housing. Now the average price of a house in Seattle is hovering around $400,000, and displacement in central and south Seattle has only accelerated over the last 15 years. How was this promoting racial and economic justice?�
The purpose of the special objectives areas policies was to recognize that government was putting almost all of its subsidized housing in low income areas, and that it would be better to try to distribute low income housing throughout the city even if it cost more.
Those were good objectives and worth trying. It is also important to learn lessons from what we do. While it is still important to do what we can to make low income housing available in affluent areas, on reflection, with the gentrification of the central area, we would probably be better off if we had locked in more land at lower prices when it was still possible.
I led the original effort in the council to establish low income housing bonuses and fought hard for the housing preservation ordinance and to protect mobile home parks. In the end, however, the only way to create large amounts of low income housing is to pay for it. I will support continued state funding of low income housing through the State Housing Trust Fund.

I am becoming little jake so I won't be confused with big Jake.

I was impressed with Sherman’s detailed and specific answers yesterday but Jim seems to have taken it to another level. Put that together with his experience of getting actual legislation passed, and we have a candidate who seems to be the most effective person running and possibly the most progressive.

He supports education reform and funding, arts funding, criminal justice reform, youth programs, access to birth control, choice, opposes the death penalty, supports funding for low income housing and election reform, can talk about race issues, supports gay marriage, and has the best endorsements from the environmental community. And he has experience working on these issues, much of it at a state level.

It will be interesting to see what the next two candidates have to say, but Street so far seems to be the candidate who can answer people's questions with depth and first hand knowledge, and has accomplishments in the areas he addresses.

....he is the only candidate with real legislative experience in the race......

shit Jake, I agree with you, but you forgot to mention that as important is Street is the only candidate who has mentioned the music community and actually recognized the economic significance of the music business. And the only one to mention the Arts. On top of that he stood up to Sidran on the Poster ban and the boom box ordinance, supports the AADO and supports grafitti artists. I also heard Street has a kid who is part of the Fraggle Rock breakdance crew.

And I just read on www.jimstreet.org that Thomas Goldstein, perhaps one of the best living humans, also ED of Youth Services Board and a member of the VERA Project Board, has endorsed Street as well.

Hey, Jim,

In light of the state legislature's failure to repeal Initiative 200 after these many years, where do you stand on Affirmative Action?

A direct answer does not a right answer make. I remain unconvinced by today's performance.

There were PLENTY of indications (mainly soaring housing prices in the 80s) of what effect special objective areas would have on the CD and south Seattle before the legislation was passed. Admiting that this legislation actually made it more difficult to mitigate the effects of gentrification is a good first step, but it's a half step when you say "if only I knew then what I knew now." Ditto the drug war and the death penalty (this goes for the prosecutor yesterday too). Ditto the Teen Dance Ordinance.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but no answers on Sonics stadium or Viaduct question?

And while we've heard the words race and social justice, where are the policy proposals? The message for this particular campaign seems to be more experience than issues. I'm skeptical about whether everyone in this race is pushing exactly the same political agenda.

I too would like to know where Jim stands on the Sonics and Viaduct. Though so far no one has taken a strong position on the viaduct and rightfully so as the studies are no complete on the impacts and funding, and no one else has taken a position on the Sonics either.

But Trevor, come on, who has answered better, more directly or more completely than Street? Music is a big issue for me, and looking at Jim's record on the poster ordinance and boom box ban, and his now support of the AADO, I can support him even after his vote for the TDO, especially in light of no organized opposition at the time and in context of the Monestary.

I doubt any candidate is going to come out against all ages shows, in favor of the death penalty, anti-choice, anti environmental, anti-education etc. The difference I see in Jim so far is that he can point to actual work he has done on these issues, can talk about his experience, and can do so very intelligently.

The reason experience matters is that it sets the candidates apart. Many people, me included, feel we need someone who can step right into Murray's shoes and make things happen. From what I can see, Street has the best qualifications to do so, with Dick Kelly coming in behind him and no one else running even close. Other candidates have good ideas and experience on one issue, and all will probably be a consistent Dem vote, but no one has the depth or breadth of experience that Street has, and no one else has proven they can accomplish as much as Street.

I think one of the biggest issues out there is the environment. A candidate like Jamie Pederson has no experience I have heard of working on the many complex environment issues. Again, Street is the best qualified on this issue and definitely has the best endorsements as well.

I'll wait to hear from the other candidates but Street seems most impressive so far. It's too bad the Stranger chose to highlight only Pederson in print, and I hope there is not some shallow litmus test that to get the Stranger endorsement in this race someone has to be gay. It IS great the Stranger has this Slog going. A fantastic experiment in journalism. Thanks Stranger. Looking forward to more great coverage on this race.

Meinert,

In all fairness, Bill Sherman's work in the Dept of the Interior under Clinton and Babbit is a pretty big deal, and does give him some serious enviro cred.

Sonics and Viaduct

Sonics - I am very skeptical about subsidies to professional sports in general and to the Sonics in this particular case. I served on the council when the existing Sonics lease was approved, and I was one of 2 members who voted against it because I believed the lease loaded too much of the risks on the public. Public subsidy of arts and entertainment can be approriate, even essential, but not when the industry involved is out of control in terms of its own costs.
I am concerned about the long term financial viability of the Seattle Center and will support efforts to maintain its contributions to the culture of our community.

Viaduct - The viaduct is a 100 year decision. The City's waterfront is or should be an incredible amenity for the downtown that everyone has access to. Now, the viaduct is a wall between the city and the water.
While I don't have all the facts needed to make a final decision, my instinct is to tear it down and build the tunnel.
Several caveats. Any decision to build a major facility should include a serious look at the no build alternative. For example, in the case of City of Seattle solid waste disposal, the executive brought to the city council an urgent proposal to build an incinerator, most likely in south Seattle. We asked staff to go back and figure out how much recycling they could do with the same amount of money, Two months later, they came back with analysis that showed that serious recycling could eliminate the need for the incinerator. Similarly with water and electricity conservation instead of new dams and power plants, and in the 70's the City Council made an incredibly courageous and wise decision to not invest in more WPPSS nuclear power plants for the same good reasons.
In this case I suspect that the analysis is likely to be less convincing given the challenges of diverting 100,000 cars per day. But the analysis should have been done.
With regard to the tunnel, the big questions are cost, risk of increased cost (given that there will not be a federal government to bail out the overruns, and the impact of the cost on oher regional transportation priorities. I would like the analysis to establish the feasibility of the tunnel because for many generations the connection between land and water would be a great amenity for the citizens of Seattle

I support affirmative action. I believe we all gain when all ethnic groups have a stake in the community's success and when all have role models in many areas of endeavor.

Sitting on the adult criminal and juvenile bench, I had too many opportunites to see young black men and boys come before me believing they had no stake in the community and no chance for success following the community's rules. The results are tragic for too many of them and their families, and all of us lose.
Those experiences have brought an edge to my commitment to do everything I can to find solutions to the disconnect that characterizes these young people, and it is why i have worked for the last 5 years on juvenile justice reform.

as a local government employee, i once took a call from mr. street, who was quite rude and brusque to me. he insisted on being connected to another employee right away as it was 'an urgent matter'. i find out later from the other employee that it was not an urgent matter, and that said mr. street was a pain in the ass.

'nuff said.

It's simply remarkable that a candidate for this office can spend all day without a single mention of public schools. Just what we need - another politician who is "for" education, but leaves it on the way, way back burner.

Jim Street writes: "That‘s one of the reasons that I have been endorsed by the Board Chair and Exec. Director of Futurewise, the State’s leading Growth Management Advocacy organization, and the former chair and executive director of Transportation Choices Coalition, the leading advocate for transit in the state. They know that I have the knowledge and the commitment and the skills and the relationships to carry the water on these issues."

Some blue-chip endorsements there. And I like the "pro tunnel but study no-build" answer on viaduct replacement. Perhaps I should not have so blithely dismissed Mr. Street's spiel...

The question about the viaduct is too smoothly offered. No one is against the tunnel. If it were free I'd say great. The question is why should we spend two BILLION dollars of our own Seattle money on a 12 block stretch of roadway? There are many other and better ways to spend two the (at least) BILLION dollars to improve Seattle than on a tunnel which will benefit an area which already receives enormous public investment. Street's answer on this one point shows how conventional his thinking is.

Interesting - there are six people at my office who live in the 43rd - I polled them today.

Very surprised - three were already voting for Street, one maybe, one for Jamie P and one with no opinion.

From the un scientific grass roots -- very good signal of traction for Street.

Well then they'll get what they deserve: a professional "public servant."

Such sententious bullshit,

I've got nothing against Street; he's a nice guy at a personal level. But he's a lifer, another inmate of the asylum we call local government. He LIKES government; there's always a "government program" to provide with "resources." He's earnest, he's sincere. He want to "do good." To help. He probably even goes to church. (I don't trust people who go to church.)

He's the worst nightmare for people who care about freedom.

Raw Data,

Street IS a public servant. And in the best of ways. He has been in the military, has worked in the private sector, has worked hard for his beliefs in the public sector, became a judge, left that to reform part of the public sector he saw wasn't working, and is now willing to take a huge pay cut to accomplish more for what he believes in - helping disenfranchised youth who are falling through the cracks in our society and social safety nets, protecting the environment, ensuring all people's rights are protected (including yours), working to repair public education, solve the transportatin crisis, and do so with a depth and breadth of experience no one else in the race has. And to you that's a bad thing?

As I said, he's a nice guy but I mistrust professional "public servants."

It's not "bad" it's just that I'd like to see someone in office who has actually "met a payroll" and knows what the world outside the cocoon of government is like.

What part of that is confusing?

Did you miss that he was part of a private practice law firm?

I am a small business owner and also think it is nice when a politician has experience in running a business, dealing with the burdens of taxes and regulations etc. But in this race there isn't anyone with that experience unless I am missing something. So it's a criticism of all candidates equally, not just Street.

Unless Jim was the managing partner, he was an employee and did little but fill a quota of hours.

Jim's a decent guy -- my problem with him is that his experience is very narrow" do-gooding in the bureaucracy. And if that's a fair criticism of the rest of the pack, so be it.

The people we get as elected officials should should have wide life experience. Most of ours in Seattle are professional "public servants."

Hey! I'd like to see Dan Savage as a councilmember -- he's run a business, at least the editorial side.

RW - I agree with your general point - broad experience is great. That's exactly why I like Jim. Compare his wide life experience to anyone else running:

2001-2006 Juvenile Justice and Youth Services Reform. Jim is currently the Director of Reinvesting in Youth, a regional partnership involving King County, the City of Seattle, 12 suburban cities, the King County Juvenile Court and the State of Washington. Over the past four years Jim has raised $2.5 million from local and national foundations to fund prevention programs for juvenile justice involved youth and their families.

1997-2000 King County Superior Court Judge. Jim served as a judge for four years including a final year as a judge of the Juvenile Court.

1984-1995 Seattle City Council. He is the father of the city's nationally acclaimed neighborhood matching fund program. He lead the council in the development of the city's Comprehensive Plan, the establishment of the Department of Neighborhoods and ordinances dealing with low-income housing, historic preservation and environmental protection.

As the first President of the Puget Sound Regional Council he led the effort to develop Vision 2020, the region's strategy for protecting our quality of life for future generations, and he chaired the public-private committee that developed the Puget Sound Region's first Economic Development Strategy.

member of the King County Metro Council, Jim played a leading role in the development of plans for a regional rapid transit system. He initiated the Metro 1% for Arts program and chaired Metro's first Public Arts Committee for its first seven years.

Jim proposed and chaired the City Council's first Committee on Public Education to establish the basis for greater City support for our public schools, and he played a leading role in the development of the City's Families and Education Levy. He initiated the development of the City's first Action Plan to expand resources for at risk children.

1977-1983 Private law practice. Jim was a partner with the Seattle law firm of Schweppe, Krug and Tausend where he practiced anti-trust and labor law.

1971-1974 World Bank. Jim worked for three years as an economist and operations analyst with the World Bank in Washington DC.

1965-1969 U. S Air Force / Vietnam Veteran. Jim served as an intelligence officer in the US Air Force in the Philippines and Vietnam.

1960-1974 Education. Jim received his BA and MPA degrees from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and his law degree from the University of Puget Sound. He graduated first in his law school class.

1971-2006 Board Memberships. Common Cause, New Horizons for Learning, Private Partners in Public Education, Citizens Education Center Northwest, Sustainable Seattle, 1000 Friends of Washington, Transportation Choices Coalition.

So far - the best. The more I read, the better I like Street.

The real deal, proven, smarts tempered by real world experience. Solid ongoing left left politics.

Meinert,
Do you work for the guy?

Sure it's a GREAT resume. (Unless you read between the lines and know the history and see the puffery in his claim to fame about the neighborhood matching grants. What a joke. The neighborhood matching grants were a way to prevent serious citizen oversight of the budget. And Street knows that.)

Guys like Street explicitly view their journey through life as "honing their resume." If that's what yoy want, that's what you'll get: a resume builder.

RD - no I don't work for Street. ironically, I do think many people go through life as resume builders. Soem of Street's opponents for sure. However Street is actually taking a huge cut in pay to enter a job that won't take him anywhere politically except to a place he can keep having a big impact on the issues important to him - social justice and the environment. So I don't really get your point. Street could go back to being a judge, make many times the money and not have to run for office in a contentious race. Seems honorable to me he would choose to do so. It's definitely not a stepping stone for him.