Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Austria's Infamous Obama-Mask Robbe… | A Bit More on That Radioactive Milk… »

Thursday, March 31, 2011

City Good On Ya, Brucie!

Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Mr. Harrell and Mr. Microphone

It was a big room and it was crowded. More than 200 people jockeyed for space around tables while others stood in the back of the historic First African Methodist Episcopal Church last night. We watched a charismatic man. He had a record, too: Lowering utility rates, proposing police body cameras to increase accountability, working on a proposal to bring internet to low-income students. Speakers gave him a ribbing—apparently this charismatic man can’t carry a tune—and he gave them a ribbing right back.

“He was really good up there,” said a fellow Seattle City Council member (one of six on hand) after Bruce Harrell delivered his Big Reelection Campaign Kickoff Speech.

So where is this Bruce Harrell—this affable chap that his friends call "Brucie"—on the Seattle City Council dais? I had simply never seen this relaxed, smiling man. And although he didn’t say much worth quoting—but here’s a token: “I am running because I want Seattle, Washington to be known as a place of hope, compassion”—he was an engaging candidate.

Lots of elected officials were there to back him up. And the big crowd, about 80 percent nonwhite, was enough to strike jealousy. “As an elected official, there is envy in my heart because it is difficult to get such a diverse group… together for one politician,” said County Council Member Larry Gossett. Speaking to Harrell’s work to support minority-owned businesses, Gossett said that "we should do everything we can to help Bruce get his second term in office.”

According to the latest filings with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, Harrell had raised $135,356 (and this was before last night's fundraisers/kickoff), compared to $18,580 raised by his challenger, Brad Meacham.

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

It was good to see him at the governor/county exec/legislature/council press conference today. True, he's a bit disappointing to the sound-bite-hungry of this world, but a good council member getting better all the time.

Posted by gloomy gus on March 31, 2011 at 5:48 PM

City Light's rates went up in 2011 and will go up 2012. If the final increases were smaller than the initial proposal, that is not lowering rates.

Proposals and charisma are nice, but what has he accomplished that merits another term?

Posted by G&T drinker on March 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Actually, CL's rates went down slightly this year: the temporary rate stabalization rate increase from last year expired, and the rate increase kicked in. The net result was something like a .05 percent decrease in rates, depending on what part of the service district you live in (Seattle's rates are slightly lower than the suburban areas)

But yes, rates are going up again next year: 4.5% or thereabouts. Still significantly cheaper than brand X across the lake.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay

on March 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Appearances can be deceiving. He seems savvy enough to stay under the radar, while using power in purely political ways to maintain that power, to the detriment of the real issues/forces of good.

Posted by Careful on March 31, 2011 at 6:20 PM

He's pretty underwhelming, I'm going to be a "nay" on reelecting him.

Posted by Baconcat on March 31, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Who is Bruce Harrell?

Posted by justinf on March 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Bruce is da' man!

Posted by Silas Potter Jr. on March 31, 2011 at 7:03 PM

This is the council member you should be watching. The room, and the overflow crowd outside it, was full of an energy not seen at many political events. That room also showed the best of Seattle and what we can be. People from many backgrounds coming together with nothing but positive thoughts in the air. I thought Bruce laid out his impressive record very well. I also think he was correct when he said something to the effect that many of his accomplishments just don't make good press copy. I'm glad you covered this event and hope you give his issues more press in the future.

Posted by LA Kings fan on March 31, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I would also remind everyone that Bruce was one of the three Council Members (along with Tom Rasmussen and Nick Licata) who opposed the panhandler's ordinance. Luckily, O'Brien jumped on board at the end, so...yet another good policy position of CM Harrell!

Posted by michaelp on March 31, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I was a initially a Harrell skeptic, but his leadership (and willingness to stick his neck out) on the Burgess proposal sold me. He's definitely got my vote.

Posted by Mr. X on March 31, 2011 at 8:29 PM

The fact that he can pull in such a diverse crowd and fill the room with energy is a testament to the man. Bruce is a good member of the council who is firmly grounded. A critical thinker, strategic mind and no BS. That is what is needed in an elected official. So what if there were no sound bites. Those are for the 7th graders who read Newsweek and USA Today. Bruce has my vote.

Posted by Sheeeeit! on March 31, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Since when does the Stranger give a crap about utility rates? Maybe if you followed more than three issues at City Hall (c'mon, everyone say it together: TUNNEL! COPS! NIGHT LIFE!), you'd know what the council members spent 97% of their time on.

Posted by kk in seattle on March 31, 2011 at 9:34 PM

I have been a Harrell supporter since he ran the first time. It was great to see so much support from such a wide array of people. It truly says something about him that he has such a diverse support base. very positive and a solid member of the council who deserves to be re-elected. GO BRUCE!!!!

Posted by Right Cross on March 31, 2011 at 9:49 PM

Harrell's opponent Brad Meacham has a reputation for not playing well with others. Looks ok on paper but is a nightmare to work with. Harrell may have some flaws, but Meacham would be very, very bad news for Seattle.

Posted by J_des38 on March 31, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Harrell is right, the work he has done with City Light does not grab the headlines. But it is important work and he has done a great job. I will be voting for him come November.

Posted by fudd on March 31, 2011 at 10:10 PM

Bruce Harrell ran on a platform supporting surface/transit and being a mass transit advocate. He almost immediately fought for the deep bore tunnel, co-sponsored repealing the commuter tax (taking away $4.5 million per year from transportation projects), and was 1 of 2 current councilmembers to vote against even considering future streetcar lines at zero cost.

Harrell voted against the aggressive panhandling - but did anyone notice why? It's because he didn't like that a police officer had to be physically present and the punishment was only a fine. He proposed interpreting existing laws so that a victim only has to report aggressive panhandling and panhandlers could be jailed without police witness:

Under the proposed Aggressive Panhandling law, in order to issue a citation, the Police Officer must witness the intimidation; he or she must be physically present. I posed the question, “If the Police Officer needs to be physically present to witness the aggressive panhandling to issue a ticket, wouldn’t it make better sense to have the person who is committing the misconduct to be charged with a crime instead of a ticket, particularly when the conduct is egregious such as unlawful intimidation?” This way the officer would not have to be present, the victim could report the crime, and the perpetrator could be apprehended and taken into custody.

http://www.bruceharrell.org/2010/06/proh…

I'll vote against him and contribute to his opponent if they are even slightly progressive (unlike Harrell).

Posted by raku on March 31, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Off-topic:

But I wanted to go back to our old 1098 "tax on the rich" arguments. SLOG argued for income taxes. I argued for asset taxes like property.

Check out this post on the NY Times blog:

Inequality Is Most Extreme in Wealth, Not Income

The top 1 percent of earners receive about a fifth of all American income; on the other hand, the top 1 percent of Americans by net worth hold about a third of American wealth. (Note that the top income earners are not necessarily the same people as the top net-worth Americans — after all, lots of high-net-worth people don’t work or have much else in the way of sources of new income.) Wealth-related inequality has also been relatively stable over the last few decades, whereas income-related inequality has been growing since the ’70s.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0…

This leads to my argument,

Asset Taxes vs. Income Taxes
http://goo.gl/4QIb0

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on March 31, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Harrell has a great record to run on and has shown with his vote against the panhandler ordinance that he is not afraid to rattle the cages of Seattle's entrenched interests (in that case the Seattle Times and the downtown business interests). While Bruce's record is reason enough to reelect him, his opponent's positions need to be scrutinized. What has transpired in Wisconsin has both rejuvenated and reaffirmed many democrats support for unions and the middle class. Bruce's opponent works for T-Mobile which has come under criticism for it's labor record and makes me wonder where his opponet stands on labor issues and rights. Below are some links on that issue.

http://www.loweringthebarforus.org/news/…

http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2009/0306/3-…

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/20…

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/research…

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic…

Posted by go_west on March 31, 2011 at 11:41 PM

A charismatic and engaging Seattle politician? Not for long!

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Raku is right. Why would the Stranger endorse this man? He's anti homeless, pro tunnel.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on April 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

Raku's interpretation of what happened with the bill seems off to me. For one, Harrell, Licata and Rasmussen were the only council members to stand firm against the panhandling ordinance from the get-go. By trying rhetorical tactic after tactic, they kept prodding their colleagues to come around.

Raku's excerpt shows how clumsily Harrell can write, but the overall thrust of his effort was to resist the Burgess idea that we should have added devastating citation power to existing criminal laws against aggressive panhandling. To his Burgess-bill-crazed colleagues who insisted on tightening existing laws somehow, Harrell tried to move them by pointing out there were ways to do that which could still preserve aggressive panhandling in the "criminal" category, to guarantee the greater protections of that category to the accused.

So while at first glance it looks like his goal was to make arrests easier, he actually was trying to make it so that if he lost his effort to kill the bill, his colleagues might at least make sure it retained rights to counsel and trial for the accused - which the hideous "citation" idea would have removed.

Did Harrell catch shit for it and get painted as anti-law-and-order? Yes, he did - and from Joni Balter in particular:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Yeah, he was sorta clumsy in his effort to overcome that by wrapping himself a little tighter in the public-safety flag afterward, as in the blog post Raku excerpted.

But he stood firm, and eventually the votes went with him and the original minority, and Burgess' bill was defeated.

Even Mike O'Brien changed his mind and voted with Harrell at the last minute:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

(And Joe @20, while I can see how you might think "Dominic writes without too many loaded words" might signal a Stranger endorsement, I think in this case it's not going to be that way at all. Harrell's declared opponent has a consultant who went trolling for clients to topple pro-tunnel incumbents, so I think the Stranger's analytical hands will be tied there...)

More...

Posted by gloomy gus on April 1, 2011 at 8:14 AM

thanks Bruce for working with the Native American community in Seattle! We're with ya.

Posted by rezbilly on April 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM

@16 and 20,

Talk about some out-of-context BS - Harrell also opposed the ordinance on civil rights and due process grounds, and stuck his neck out plenty far doing so.

Tim Harris hugged him at the press conference - I guess that makes him staunchly anti-homeless, right?

Bullshit. Utter bullshit.

Posted by Mr. X on April 1, 2011 at 8:07 PM