Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Thursday, September 10, 2009

McGinn Wins First Mayoral Debate, Calls for Vote on Tunnel

Posted by on Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Everything seemed geared toward mayoral candidate Joe Mallahan trouncing challenger Mike McGinn in their first head-to-head debate this afternoon. Sponsored by the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the questions were written primarily by their members and anchored on topics of business and jobs, which mesh well with Mallahan’s experience as a T-Mobile executive.

mcginn_vs_mallahan.jpg
McGinn, wearing a red tie, had the odds stacked against him; as a Greenwood neighborhood activist, he has fought alongside people who have sought restrictions on and benefits from development, which are the sort of things the event’s co-sponsors—the Master Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties—have long lobbied to avoid. He also opposes spending $930 million on a tunnel (the number-one priority of event co-sponsor Downtown Seattle Association). But McGinn wielded a cool demeanor and rolling cadence to engage the crowd, he reframed the debate around his campaign themes (including how the tunnel would require an unprecedented tax hike), and consistently showed a deep knowledge of issues—while Mallahn came off as snarky and under-informed.

For instance, moderator Steve Scher, host of KUOW’s Weekday, asked about a program to give developers more height for buildings in exchange for constructing some affordable housing. Where is it failing? Mallahan said he dislikes the program, and that it should be replaced with “fees and taxes on developers.” McGinn responded by explaining that it may work downtown but hinder construction in less desirable neighborhoods, including Northgate. But he noted that neighborhoods can be improved, thanks to libraries and greener streets, to make them more desirable. And obstacles like on-site parking requirements could be cut to make construction profitable. Schrer asked Mallahan, “What would you do?”

“About the same. I think we have talked about it enough,” Mallahan said, clearly out of his league on an issue important to people in the audience. At several points Mallahan interrupted, requiring Scher to make him back off.

“McGinn demonstrated a high level of affability,” said Gary Strannigan, regional director of public affairs for Safeco Insurance who gave the welcoming address, walking down Fourth Avenue afterward. Although Strannigan doesn’t live in Seattle, he says, “Before today, I would have voted for Mallahan because of his business experience. But I have to say I was impressed with McGinn’s skill. He did a nice job from a public standpoint, and he was more knowledgeable.”

Some at Cinerama Theater clearly couldn’t be swayed. In the row behind me, a three-person crew in blue and white “Firefighters for Mallahan” t-shirts held up Mallahan signs for the duration. But most of the 400-person crowd in business attire looked inquisitive (including city council members Tom Rasmussen and Tim Burgess), munching on tuna sandwiches handed out at the door. The topics covered annexing unincorporated land, handling city budget shortfalls, and working with the city council. Several people leaving the theater commented that many of McGinn's and Mallahan's policy differences were indistinguishable.

But Mallahan played his cards well on a couple of questions. When asked about "community benefit agreements"—neighborhood contracts with developers to support a project if certain demands are met—Mallahan noted that he supports neighborhood requests for union labor (which hold huge sway in local elections) but only if developers agree to the terms. This pleases unions and development interest in one answer.

McGinn, however, framed answers around making a desirable city that people want to live in and stake businesses. He also leaned heavily on the right of due process about huge spending decisions—such as levies for schools, housing, parks—and particularly on the tunnel.

“Putting it to a vote, absolutely,” McGinn said. He argues that the public overwhelmingly shot down a tunnel option in 2007, and that the decision to raise taxes for a tunnel has only been vetted by a handful of stakeholders. “If you are going to overturn the vote of the people, you have to make the case.”

McGinn said he supports the head tax, but noted that Mallahan supports the biggest tax hike in the city’s history. “If we want to have an efficient government, we have to keep taxes down and make wise investments.”

 

Comments (29) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
OH BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THE TUNNEL, AND MALLAHAN IS AN AMAZING SPEAKER AND IS EAGER TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!!!!

Bahahahahahaha, go Mayor Daddybear!
Posted by Baconcat on September 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM
2
Seriously, I'm going to take Dominic's word on who "won" the debate? This even-handed, fair-minded "journalist"?

Why not give us the facts and let us decide?

Posted by AreYouSerious on September 10, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Baconcat 3
Oh, I like how most accounts so far show that Mallahan was rude, interrupted McGinn frequently -- AND LOUDLY -- and spent a lot of time dodging questions or giving non-answers. He's so Mavericky.
Posted by Baconcat on September 10, 2009 at 4:22 PM
4
not a bad report, Dom.
Posted by your friend on September 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
5
Another VOTE on the tunnel?!? You gotta be fuckin kidding me. This reminds me of the god damned monorail, where it took FIVE "advisory" votes to finally kill the thing. Why? Because our elected officials didn't have the guts to stick to a vision and see it through.

Tell you what, I'll put my vote behind Mallahan and call it good. Whoever the Mayor ends up being, as a citizen I expect him to put his balls out there and lead. This is making me nostalgic for the days when the political operators in this town could get shit done rather than dither endlessly.
Posted by Westside forever on September 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM
kitschnsync 6
Dom's account is accurate. Most people left feeling that McGinn actually knows the issues, and Mallahan is just bluffing his way through. Unfortunately, McGinn's intransigence on the AWV issue is still going to cost him the support of the business community.
Posted by kitschnsync on September 10, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Gurldoggie 7
I agree that from my vantage point it sure seemed like McGinn owned the debate from the get go. But the chattter around me was overwhelmingly pro-Mallahan. "He seems more mature" people said, and "McGinn seems so naive." This may shape up to be a tough race.
Posted by Gurldoggie http://gurldogg.blogspot.com on September 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Baconcat 8
@6: As with any campaign, the strength of the endorsement is key. I can't see the business community giving a very strong endorsement of Mallahan -- if any endorsement at all -- and they'd be putting themselves in a tight spot just outright opposing a popular candidate.
Posted by Baconcat on September 10, 2009 at 4:35 PM
9
Ugggh, a disappointing recap. We get it -- you like McGinn, his cool demeanor and his red tie. But for those of us who have to work in the afternoon, could you please post a recap of what actually happened there?!?
Posted by Echoes Myron on September 10, 2009 at 4:40 PM
10
Well of course he was cool and collected...the entire Stranger staff gave McGinn blowjobs before he walked on stage.
Posted by Roger That on September 10, 2009 at 4:42 PM
11
Just wait until Russell moves into Wamu and starts "demanding" a tunnel.

They've got it all figured out...as always...
Posted by Usual Suspects on September 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Sargon Bighorn 12
I don't want to vote on the tunnel and have a law suit over the vote and on and on and on and on and on. I won't vote for McGinn if he keeps up with this shenanigan of wanting a vote on the tunnel. I'll vote for a guy that can't be bothered to vote in the first place! Why of fucking why do we always get stuck with the choice between bad and worse?
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on September 10, 2009 at 4:44 PM
13
If at first you don't get your way on something, drag feet, stall, obstruct until you can vote on it again!

It's a borderline Republican way of doing things. Might as well institute traffic panels that could decide to kill your car and force you onto the bus.
Posted by PA Native on September 10, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Baconcat 14
@12: You know, if we kill it now, we won't have to go through the trouble of finding out about the real date of completion and the real cost. As it stands, they aren't even done doing preliminary testing of the soil conditions and they're already not finding a lot of good news.

Moreover, the final EIS won't be done until 2011, so they really did sell something with no way to backup the real cost or timeline.

Enjoy :)
Posted by Baconcat on September 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
seandr 15
How could either candidate win the debate when they both suck? They are both losers.

McGinn's platform seems to be a) no new taxes and b) put every big project to a vote, or multiple votes if need be, until it get's shot down. Now that's leadership!

And Mallahan doesn't seem to have a platform at all, which I suppose you could argue is better than a very stupid platform.

Anyway you look at this election, the outcome is guaranteed to be lame.
Posted by seandr on September 10, 2009 at 4:54 PM
gloomy gus 16
@12, I get the feeling if anybody in town is smart enough to be mayor "from day 1," whoever that is certainly didn't care enough to enter the race. For the voter, it may come down to half a loaf being better than none. With neither candidate a genius of any kind, all it may take is for one to establish himself in voters' minds as the less-insubstantial man.

FWIW, Mallahan so far acts like a big fish stunned to find himself outside his small pond for the first time in years, and it's not appealing. And then McGinn's got down pat the lawyer's ability to highlight his case's strengths in a way that suggests the weaknesses don't matter a bit, and that you must be a little dumb for asking after them. That's effectve in a campaign, but annoying in a mayor.

Shrug.
Posted by gloomy gus on September 10, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Gomez 17
The title of this post was written two days before the debate.
Posted by Gomez http://gomezticator.livejournal.com on September 10, 2009 at 7:14 PM
18
mike mcginn--you MOVE TO FUCKING NORTHGATE. jesus, why does every fucking liberal in this town talk about Northgate when talking about density. why don't they talk about Wallingford or Greenwood? Put a bunch of 9 story condos, with low income, along Phinney and Greenwood. See how good Mike "I bike but still live in a fucking single family home" McGinn likes it.

and your geigh man crush on McGinn is seriously pathetic. You guys aren't journalists.
Posted by dacoach on September 10, 2009 at 8:38 PM
DOUG. 19
Mallahan's presence in the Final Two is a testament to the stupidity of Seattle's electorate.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on September 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
20
18 - because Northgate sucks now, Wallingford and Greenwood don't

Density would definitively make Northgate better while it's impact on Wallingford and Greenwood would be ambiguous at best
Posted by Reader1 on September 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Cato the Younger Younger 21
I still think we should go 4 years without a mayor and just let the council run Seattle: I mean seriously, these two are a choice between Daffy Duck and Snagglepuss to captian the Titantic after it hit the iceburg.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on September 11, 2009 at 3:27 AM
22
How about a vote on the surface option as well, if public votes are so important?
Posted by As If on September 11, 2009 at 8:10 AM
SchmuckyTheCat 23
“If you are going to overturn the vote of the people, you have to make the case.”

If McGinn is seriously conjuring the non-binding non-vote that didn't have this tunnel on the ballot and where all presented options lost pretty much equally - as saying the elected leaders of the city and state negotiating and coming up with a new solution is "overturning the vote of the people" then that is misleading at best, and a demagogic lie at worst.

On another matter, we DO NOT need to vote on everything. That is why we have elected representatives.
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on September 11, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Will in Seattle 24
Only people who have never been through the Seattle process are so naive as to believe we can't kill a Billionaires Tunnel we didn't vote for.

We can.

We have.

And we will.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM
breakdown 25
How is it that both candidates spent 20 minutes in the same room with Steve Scher without shooting themselves in the face?
Posted by breakdown on September 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
breakdown 26
"...a program to give developers more height for buildings in exchange for constructing some affordable housing. Where is it failing?"

This program is working. It's the main reason all the development in Capitol Hill hasn't turned it into Belltown.

"obstacles like on-site parking requirements could be cut to make construction profitable."

Fuck. That.

It's hard enough to park in this city because too many developers have been allowed to weasel out of providing adequate underground parking. Construction is obviously plenty profitable--there are more tower cranes in this city than trees!
Posted by breakdown on September 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM
27
Will @ 24, some of us believe in representative democracy. I hate direct democracy because nothing ever gets done. Sure, you like it now because it favors your position, but just admit that the Seattle Way is something that has stifled this city's development at every turn... unless you also hated the idea of a citywide monorail line. That previous advisory vote (on a different sort of tunnel) was ridiculous on its face, and only forced a further delay on making a decision.

The tunnel allows us to retain at least 80% of present capacity on a *state highway* while also allowing Alaskan Way to become a regular road again, just as those proponents have asked for from the start. Everyone wins!
Posted by serotonein on September 11, 2009 at 3:11 PM
28
I hope one of the questions from the moderator was why Mr. Mallahan is so concerned about improving Seattle now that there is a plum job in it for him but didn't bother to get involved in anything much less vote in 10 elections.

Mike McGinn has put in the time. He's started a non-profit focused on making Seattle more livable, he got the park's levy passed, he help kill a big fat roads package even though conventional wisdom said we had to eat it because if come attached to a light-rail expansion, then he fought to get light rail on the ballot and it passed.

He spent a tenth of the money the mayor did on the primary and a fifth of Mallahan's largely self-financed campaign--and got more votes than both.

That is called getting shit done.

Posted by akirap on September 12, 2009 at 12:15 AM
29
McGinn= informed and ideas

Mallahan= moronic and buying his way
Posted by janet c on September 20, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy