Michael McGinn is running for Mayor of Seattle. We enthusiastically endorse Mr. McGinn, and we encourage all those who aspire for a better city to vote for him.

See his:

• official campaign website
• Facebook
• Twitter
• campaign-finance disclosure reports with the Seattle Ethics & Elections Commission

   

Table of Contents

• Discussion forum on the candidates for Mayor of Seattle
• Video of Mayoral Candidate Forum on July 13
• Analysis by Friends of Seattle
• Michael McGinn's Interview Videos
• Michael McGinn's Questionnaire Responses

Analysis

Michael McGinn is a courageous voice of change, and we enthusiastically endorse him for Mayor of Seattle. Mr. McGinn is the candidate we need to get the politics we deserve instead of the politics we have. Mr. McGinn's vision is a Seattle that lives up to its environmental ideals, invests in the needs of neighborhoods across the city, and strikes a fairer balance between biking, walking, transit, and driving.

One issue that highlights his philosophy for Seattle is his opposition to the $4.2 billion Viaduct replacement tunnel, and we agree with his position. With the tunnel, we are spending billions of dollars on a piece of infrastructure that will be obsolete as soon as it opens in 6-7 years: gas prices will be higher than ever, demand for transit will continue to outstrip new transit service, and vehicle miles traveled per capital will continue to drop, especially as the state and federal governments move from per-gallon gas taxes to per-mile-driven fees.

Of course, every candidate for elected office in Seattle seems to talk about clean, green transportation, but most of them are unwilling to make the tough choices to invest seriously in transit, walking, and biking. Mr. McGinn is the exception in the mayor’s race, and in his interview and questionnaire, he clearly explained why the tunnel is a missed opportunity to invest in alternative transportation. After the City raids Seattle residents’ bank accounts to collect the $930 million (or more) to pay for Seattle’s share of the tunnel, Seattle’s already-burdened taxpayers will rightly be reluctant to pay for the transit service, new sidewalks, bike infrastructure, and street maintenance that are so badly needed throughout the city. In a similar vein as the tunnel, Mr. McGinn argued persuasively at our candidate forum in July that many candidates' support for cutting the commuter tax ("head tax") is an election-season ploy that ignores the real costs---a loss of $5 million in annual revenues for local transportation infrastructure.

Augmenting Mr. McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel are his specific and concrete ideas for how to implement his vision. For instance, Mr. McGinn explained at length the steps that he would take as mayor to help improve transit service, even though the Mayor of Seattle does not control King County Metro. The first, as he said in his interview, is to simply care and to put as much effort lobbying the state for more transit dollars as our city leaders spent lobbying for the deep-bore tunnel. In addition, as he explained in his questionnaire, “We would work with Metro on improving transit frequency and reliability by giving transit the priority it needs to succeed on city streets. This involves transit signal priority, bus lanes, parking restrictions, and bus stop location and design.” As we saw in last winter’s snowstorm, the way the City manages its streets greatly impacts the County’s ability to provide bus service.

When Mr. McGinn first announced his candidacy, our impression was that his focus on technology infrastructure was off-point, and we hoped to see a stronger fundraising campaign. As his campaign progressed, however, Mr. McGinn found his voice, and his campaign is displaying grassroots strength.

And Mr. McGinn is outstanding on the issues across the board. He is very supportive of the Bicycle Master Plan, and he proposed a menu of funding sources to implement the plan. We were also pleased to see he isn’t satisfied with the Plan's status quo and suggests “safer and friendlier” bicycle infrastructure, such as “contiguous colored bike lanes, bike boxes, striping a buffer zone between parked cars and the bike lane to minimize ‘dooring’ and placing the bike lane between the sidewalk and the parking lane.” Also, because Mr. McGinn is a member of the Pedestrian Master Plan Advisory Group, we are confident that pedestrian infrastructure also has his support.

Mr. McGinn also supports the backyard-cottage ordinance, thinks that the City’s proposals to improve townhouse designs “aren’t bold enough,” wants the green bag fee to pass, and has a balanced approach to rezoning for greater density (“Adjacency to public transportation, urban village status, other zoning considerations (various forms of NC and C), and community input.”).

Mr. McGinn's civic experience was important to us, because while we are excited about the possibility of change at City Hall, we wanted someone who understands the issues, has experience working with Seattle’s diverse community groups, and has a track record of success in community involvement. Mr. McGinn is a former partner at the Stokes Lawrence law firm, giving us confidence he has the skills to understand the thicket of laws and regulations that affect everything the city does---and how to change them. He has experience at every level: neighborhoods (he was the President of the Greenwood Community Council), city (he founded the Seattle Great City Initiative and served on several city commissions and advisory committees), region (he was a member of the Port of Seattle Environmental Cabinet), and state (he served on the Washington Climate Advisory Team).

Not only that, but he has been successful at local politics. As the Executive Director of Great City, Mr. McGinn was instrumental in putting together the Green Legacy Coalition, a broad-based coalition of businesses, developers, and community groups (of which Friends of Seattle was one) that successfully lobbied the City Council to put a new parks levy on the ballot last year, and Mr. McGinn then chaired the successful Parks and Green Spaces Levy campaign. With the Sierra Club, Mr. McGinn helped lead the victorious fight against the 2007 Roads and Transit measure. Both of these successful campaigns were waged despite the opposition of Mayor Nickels.

We hesitated to endorse a challenger to Greg Nickels unless the candidate had superior positions on the issues in addition to the political skills and civic experience necessary to be an effective mayor. Mr. McGinn’s interview, endorsement questionnaire, performance at our July candidate forum, and long history of community leadership convinced us that he is that candidate. Mr. McGinn is the best choice for mayor, and we encourage all those who aspire for a better city to vote for him.

Interview

Part 1 of 4:

Part 2 of 4:

Part 3 of 4:

Part 4 of 4:

Questionnaire Responses

Table of Contents:

• General Questions
  • Friends of Seattle's Mission
  • Candidate Qualifications
  • Representing Seattle
  • City Council Committees
• Issues
  • Waste Reduction
  • Alaskan Way Viaduct
  • Transit
  • Bicycle Infrastructure
  • Pedestrian Infrastructure
  • Land Use and Multifamily Housing
  • City Governance
• Creative Response

General Questions

Friends of Seattle's Mission

• How does your candidacy support Friends of Seattle's values, goals, and mission?

To thrive, Seattle must make good choices to prepare for the future. I have set out a platform to support schools, technology infrastructure and local transit as good investments in our people and our infrastructure. At the same time, I am opposing the proposed viaduct tunnel. It is unfunded, risky, and threatens the ability of Seattle to fund basic services and make the right investments in our future. Friends of Seattle's vision - to have a sustainable, healthy, and livable future - is directly reflected in these statements.

Qualifications

• Please describe any professional accomplishments that demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you are an incumbent) or would demonstrate your effectiveness as an elected official (if you have not yet held office).

• With my community council in Greenwood, the Sierra Club, and the non-profit Great City, I helped build their effectiveness by setting clear outcomes, recruiting good people, and overseeing effective campaigns.
• At Great City, I helped build the community coalition that put the parks levy on the ballot and ran the campaign that passed it, leading to parks and green spaces improvements throughout Seattle.
• I helped lead the Sierra Club in opposing RTID, and supported passage of light rail a year later. This last accomplishment was the most significant, because the Sierra Club could not rely on the partnership of any other group when it started, and conventional wisdom was that we could not succeed.
• In Greenwood, we brought together business and neighborhood advocates to support environmentally progressive development that improved our local business district.
• In addition to these accomplishments, I have been appointed to advisory groups that made an impact at the city, state and national levels.

Representing Seattle

Background: Seattle is the most populous city in Washington and is the state's economic engine. At the same time, Seattle cannot address many of its problems without working with King County, regional entities (Sound Transit and the PSRC), and the state government. Yet many observers believe that Seattle's interests are represented inadequately at those levels. For example, the Muni League has criticized the 40-20-40 rule for allocating new Metro transit funding. Further, transit advocates note that the state's current tax system disadvantages transit. And the Legislature refused to allocate federal stimulus dollars for road projects in Seattle.

• As an elected official representing Seattle, how would you work with King County, regional governmental entities, the state legislature, and the governor to ensure their budgets and policies address Seattle's needs?

In my work as an advocate I have followed simple rules: Focus on outcomes, say what you want to happen, listen to what others want and work diligently to achieve common goals. As an economic engine, Seattle can help the state achieve its economic goals. But we can also help the state achieve its goals of reducing global warming pollution, particularly from transportation, helping clean up Puget Sound, and reducing sprawl. These outcomes all have broad public support, but are also difficult political issues.

My experience working through the Sierra Club, my neighborhood of Greenwood, and with my non-profit Great City, is that difficult issues require tough decisions about when to say "good enough", and when to work to do even better. I am proud that even when I find myself on the opposite side of an issue from a politician or another advocate, I have maintained the type of relationship that allows us to work together on other issues. I would bring that combination of collaboration and principled advocacy to the role of Mayor.

Specifically, I would

• Meet regularly with our state delegation to help prioritize legislation that furthers the City's goals in Olympia.
• Work with peer cities to advocate for common policy goals in Olympia. Cities like Bellevue, Tacoma, Bremerton, Renton and Spokane are all urbanizing and may support increased funding for Transit and tools for implementing livability like Tax Increment Financing.
• Work with County Council members to change the 40-20-40 policy

Issues

Waste Reduction

Background: Rather than build an expensive new transfer in Georgetown to handle the growing volume of trash generated in Seattle, the City of Seattle adopted a "Zero Waste Strategy" centered on reducing waste. As part of that strategy, the City Council adopted a 20-cent "green fee" for disposable shopping bags.

• Do you support the green fee? Why or why not?

Yes. The green fee is an environmentally responsible solution to a chronic problem.

Alaskan Way Viaduct

Background: Governor Gregoire signed a legislative bill ordering the Washington State Department of Transportation to design a bored tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. This bill contains language allocating cost overruns to Seattle citizens, although some question whether the language has legal significance. Notwithstanding that provision, the City of Seattle committed $930 million and the Port of Seattle $300 million to finance the tunnel. Although the exact tax consequences of these commitments are not totally clear, it is safe to assume that the Port's contribution would result in higher property taxes for Seattle property owners, and the City's pledge would be funded with increases in property taxes, City Light utility rates, and possibly other taxes and fees.

• Do you support the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel? Why or why not?

No. At $4.2 billion, the tunnel already costs too much and harms Seattle's real priorities. It is the most risky, the most expensive, and the most polluting.

• If you support the tunnel, what would you do to address the cost-overruns issue?

[Editor's note: No answer given.]

• If you oppose the tunnel, what would you do to prevent its implementation?

As Mayor, the city would not contribute funding toward the tunnel, and we would use all the tools at our disposal to stop it.

Transit

Background: The City of Seattle already contributes to local transit. The City put together the financing package to construct the South Lake Union streetcar line, and the City and King County Metro share the ongoing operating costs for that line. Further, the Bridging the Gap tax package finances some Metro bus service within Seattle, and Bridging the Gap also pays for street improvements designed to expedite bus travel.

• If elected, how do you intend to improve the in-city transit system?

Seattle is in charge of how its local streets are used. We would work with Metro on improving transit frequency and reliability by giving transit the priority it needs to succeed on city streets. This involves transit signal priority, bus lanes, parking restrictions, and bus stop location and design. Seattle would also make transit funding a priority, rather than highway funding, so that we could invest in upgraded buses and increased operating hours. The replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct gives us a choice - more transit, or a multi-billion dollar buried highway that does not serve transit.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Background: The City of Seattle has adopted a Bicycle Master Plan, which provides a vision for improving bicycling facilities in Seattle.

• Do you support the Bicycle Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

Ensuring that infrastructure gaps continue to be filled at an increased rate. Also, I would like the City to explore implementation of European-style bike facilities. These are safer and friendlier for cyclists than those recommended under current AASHTO standards. Examples may include contiguous colored bike lanes, bike boxes, striping a buffer zone between parked cars and the bike lane to minimize "dooring" and placing the bike lane between the sidewalk and the parking lane.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

A combination of Bridging the Gap (and its associated taxes), redistribution of the transportation pie to prioritize nonmotorized transportation, creative thinking to uncover other funding options such as other taxes, reallocation of other funding sources, piggybacking on other SDOT programs, private partnerships, state and federal grants or allocations.

Pedestrian Infrastructure

The City Council is considering whether to adopt a draft Pedestrian Master Plan.

• Do you support the Pedestrian Master Plan? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support it, do you have ideas for improving the plan?

Increasing the funding that is available for implementation would improve the plan's chance of widespread success.

• If you support it, how do you suggest the City fund the plan?

See bullet three under bicycle infrastructure. The current plan does not have any dedicated funding. I believe this is because the current administration is reserving all future transportation dollars from city sources for the implementation of the Viaduct Tunnel. The city's commitment of funding for the Viaduct Tunnel has direct and significant negative consequences for transit, biking and walking in Seattle.

Land Use and Multifamily Housing

Background: According to U.S. Census data cited in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, about half of Seattle's households live in multifamily housing. Further, according to the Plan, approximately 40% of Seattle's total land area is set aside for residential use-35% for single-family residences but only 5% for multifamily dwellings. That 5% dedicated to multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in "urban villages" or along arterial streets, which are noisy and dirty. However, "backyard cottages" (also known as "detached accessory dwelling units) are also allowed in singe-family zones in Southeast Seattle.

• Would you support legislation to allow backyard cottages to be built in all single-family zones? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• Would you ever support a contract rezone or a broader rezone allowing for more housing to be built on a site? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the basic concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding on specific locations where more housing should be built?

Adjacency to public transportation, urban village status, other zoning considerations (various forms of NC and C), and community input.

• If you support the concept of rezoning, what criteria would you use in deciding where more housing should be built?

Current density, the quality of housing stock, and perhaps most important, the existence of existing infrastructure such as schools, fire stations, power stations, and shopping villages.

Many newly built townhouses in Seattle are architectural atrocities, and site plans tend to be car-dominated. Most townhouse developments are exempt from the City of Seattle's Design Review Program. It is also difficult to find attractive new condos and apartment buildings. To address some of these problems, the City Council is considering a package of revisions to the zoning code.

• Do you support the proposed revisions to the multifamily housing zoning code? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

• If you support the revisions, do you have ideas for improving the proposed revisions?

The revisions aren't bold enough to get at the problem of the ground level being devoted almost entirely to automobile movement and storage. This reduces the appeal of the building at street level and increases costs. Seattle should look to other jurisdictions for townhouse styles that work, rather than attempting to merely modify its code.

City Governance

• Do you support the "Vote Clean Seattle" plan, which is supported in principle by the City Council, to create a system for publicly funded campaigns in Seattle? [Yes/No only please]

Yes.

Creative Response

• If you have additional thoughts on how to improve Seattle's city government or to make Seattle a more livable and sustainable city, please note them here.

I would like to see a culture change in Seattle's city government. The past eight years have been dominated by a top-down approach to governing that has stifled innovation and alienated the public. Solving problems like making our neighborhoods more livable, reducing our dependence on single occupancy vehicles and reducing the City's carbon footprint will take a collaborative approach and will involve a wide range of people representing diverse interests and organizations and ideas.