The Mayor's race: Why McGinn Must Go

[John V. Fox]

Outside City Hall: The Mayor’s Race and Why McGinn Must Go

– John V. Fox (Note I’m writing this as an individual knowing some of our friends and Coalition supporters back the other guy)

Some of my good friends in the housing and homeless advocacy community have asked me why I’m backing Ed Murray. Afterall, isn’t McGinn the guy who vetoed the Burgess anti-panhandling law and supports continued funding for social and human services? Put simply this isn’t any where near adequate justification for giving McGinn another four years in office.

Mayor McGinn is the most shamelessly pro-developer, pro-density, pro-growth Mayor we’ve had at least since I’ve been involved in city politics (and that’s a long time). He could care less how runaway growth continues to ravage our existing stock of low income and affordable housing not to mention how it has seriously eroded the physical character of our neighborhoods, hurt small businesses, and the pressure it continues to place on our urban streams, greenbelts, parks, tree canopy and open space.

It drips with irony, to hear his supporters call him McGinn our “green mayor”. During his tenure, we’ve poured more carbon emitting, energy consuming concrete, wiped out more historic carbon sequestering old growth housing (and urban trees) and displaced many more now car-dependent low wage workers to the suburbs than at any time in our city’s history.

In four years, McGinn has allowed our neighborhoods to go without bridge, road, and street repairs – a backlog estimated now at nearly 2 billion dollars. He blames that on Murray – says we don’t have the dollars – but that hasn’t stopped McGinn from dedicating huge chunks each year of the city budget – hundreds of millions into his favorite neighborhood – South Lake Union – for Mercer Corridor, the Streetcar, and a host other capital “improvements” there and in downtown. If he’s re-elected, it is very clear neighborhood needs (especially real transportation needs like restoring and expanding bus service) will continue to be ignored – in favor of a useless, and wasteful $850 million dollar street car expansion plan – now his signature effort – that and a sports stadium.

There are permits now pending for construction of an astounding number of residential units – over 17000 – in a city that for decades averaged between 1000-3000 per year. Counting these, Seattle in eight and a half years has reached 117 percent of its 20 year regionally assigned growth target. City planners also say we have capacity under existing zoning for another 188,000 units- over three times the capacity we need to carry us beyond the year 2035.

But such unprecedented levels of growth aren’t nearly enough for the McGinn crowd. He’s committed to more dramatic upzones in our neighborhoods including an insane plan calling for 300’ towers in the U-District that would displace literally hundreds of existing lower density low income and affordable homes.

New housing construction (and displacement) hit record levels but it’s still not enough for the McGinn crowd

According to city documents, those 17000 new units now going thru permitting also will require demolition of over 1700 existing residential units. Counting these pending losses, since 2005, over 6500 low cost units have been demolished for new development in Seattle. This is the single most important reason we have such high levels of homelessness and growing levels of poverty and inequality in our city. As growth has accelerated, it’s caused the loss of thousands of low cost units due to demolition, speculative sale, conversion, and increased rents.

I hold Mayor McGinn personally responsible for these housing losses and the hardships it’s caused for thousands in our community booted from their homes. Our Council bares responsibility too, but McGinn’s in charge. And more than simply presiding over these trends, he’s actively opposed any measures that control or manage growth, that require developers to replace housing they remove, or that require they pay impact fees (as all other cities do in the region).

McGinn, his planners, and a cadre of corporate funded elitist organizations backing him masquerade – wrap their policies in a fake patina of environmentalism. Cramming density into Seattle regardless of its cost and impacts (including ironically on our local environment – our greenbelts, open space, tree canopy, etc) – it literally is a religion to McGinn and his cabal.

The McGinn crowd, also are trying to redefine “progressivism” and equate that with their prodeveloper progrowth biases. In any past era, the notion would be laughed out of the room, but it’s gained traction due to the clout of developer funded and euphemistically named groups like “Great Cities”, “Futurewise”, and “Transportation Choices” and a handful of niche political blogs.

Just this week, the Stranger in its infinite wisdom, tells us that Nick Licata no longer is a progressive because he hasn’t jumped on the give-developers-everything-they-want, pro-streetcar bandwagon. Blasphemy, Licata actually says developers should include low cost housing in their projects and preferences buses over streetcars.

Unlike McGinn, Ed Murray is not a member let alone leader of the pro- density cult

This is not to say that he too doesn’t have a lot of developers backing him as his list of contributors clearly indicates. But Murray is old school, more of a throwback to past Mayoral administrations where it was “just business”. And past Mayors have taken a far more cautious approach to upzoning and on occasions even been willing to support measures that mitigate the impacts of growth on low income housing and our neighborhoods.

Try and find a true neighborhood or housing activist sitting on the Planning or Design Commission, on SHA’s board, or any other influential advisory body McGinn controls. By contrast Murray has made commitments to neighborhoods (to convene a big neighborhood forum early in his tenure), and to us (as housing advocates) to change that. What that ultimately means – who knows – but he’ll at least give us access (we have none now) and hear us out, and won’t act precipitously on critical growth questions .

Murray also has referred to the Berschi School’s removal of low income housing right next door to his home, and wondered why there weren’t tools to steer or control growth so as to prevent these kinds of losses. While not taking the leadership role, he’s always supported the low income housing measures we’ve pushed in Olympia. Publicly he has also raised concerns about runaway growth and rightly accused McGinn of having a rail “fetish” (meaning at the expense of other modes such as buses which McGinn and his cabal openly abjure – don’t believe it? Read what the Stranger thinks of buses in it’s current rant on Licata).

The return of the old guard is better than McGinn

The last Mayor to impose a moratorium on growth in this city (on demolitions in downtown and the loss of mobile home parks) was Charles Royer. Murray has said this is a Mayor he has high regard for and ran things fairly well. The Displacement Coalition was perhaps Royer’s most outspoken and oft-quoted critic. But after McGinn and Nickels … well I kind of long for “the good ole days”.

I fully expect that once Murray is elected (as the polls suggest) we’ll see a lot of people from the Royer era and other past administrations joining his staff – back to the future so to speak. (I’m hoping he’ll find a place for Peter Steinbrueck). I’d rather be dealing with these folks than the McGinn crowd pushing literally unlimited densities in a city already drowning in development (displacement and gentrification and the inequality that grows out of that) and who arrogantly act like they’re on a mission from god. The defeat of McGinn is important for the future of this city in order to send this crowd packing.

Share This

[JanS]

well, that was long…always interesting to get another point of view. Welcome to the forum. West Seattleite?

Share This

[wakeflood]

While I’m not done processing all of the above, and checking the veracity of the claims – checking who the DTA is supporting (and choose the OTHER GUY) – I do know that I’m a strong advocate of Bus Rapid Transit as a WAY cheaper and more efficient people mover than light rail or other alternatives.

I don’t know why it always gets the short shrift but if we want to support higher density within our limited geography at some kind of sustainable dollar figure, BRT is our best bet.

Now I just need to find a candidate who agrees! (And yes, you should wish me luck with that.)

Share This

[Genesee Hill]

After reading that garbage, I checked McGinn and mailed in my ballot.

Share This

[amalia]

Murray was right when he joked about losing the bike lobby. He should have been smarter about that. I’m voting McGinn.

Share This

[JoB]

m.. FOX

LOL.. i don’t think i have enjoyed so much hyperbole in one spot for a long time

funny how this popped up right after i posted the you-tube video of that homeless advocacy guy who actually does more than sign his name to McGinn’s endorsement..

he is willing to tell you what he thinks and why face to face…

just in case you missed it.. that was Tim Harris from Real Change..

and i endorse his endorsement ;0

BTW. i post my name often enough..

but just in case you haven’t been reading the West Seattle Blog long…

My name is Joanne Brayden…

and if i could figure out how to actually edit my poster information i would have added it long ago…

*****

Wow.. i must offer you an apology..

it seems you are real..

at least you publish under the name John V Fox

but you appear to be less real as a homeless advocate

and more real as an opponent of high density building who uses the fact that low income housing is often lost in urban renewal to make his point.

I have to apologize for my sarcasm

but that doesn’t change the fact that i still find the hyperbole amusing…

Share This

[WSB]

Just a note on the origins of this – We (and I’m sure other media) received this some days ago as an op-ed submission. Since we don’t have an op-ed section, when something comes in, as it has from time to time, as a proposed op-ed piece, provided it’s about an issue or candidate that is relevant to WS either specifically or as part of the city as a whole, I refer the sender here; it’s up to them subsequently to choose to post it or not. – TR

Share This

[Diane]

Thank you John V. Fox for this very thoughtful and comprehensive piece; thank you for taking the time to share here, and please keep spreading the word; thank you for your decades of service as an activist for the homeless and poor in Seattle; thank you for all your social justice work and advocating for affordable housing; if not for you and your many many times taking on city hall, our housing situation could have been even worse

~

I agree; and I am voting for Ed Murray

Share This

[JoB]

once again.. i owe you an apology.

I didn’t search deeply enough to realize that you have been involved in the fight against displacement for some time.

and … i still enjoyed the hyperbole..

Share This

[blbl]

Why I’m voting against McGinn:

-pandering to the tunnel folks just to get elected, then flip-flopping to fight it as soon as he’s in office.

-the fiasco, misinformation and lack of public vetting around the “homeland security” cameras installed on Alki and Admiral.

-totally (and hypocrytically) anti-car.

-failed to get community-wide wi-fi like he promised.

-only remembers West Seattle exists when its campaign time.

Share This

[Diane]

bump; 10 days til ballots are due

Share This

[maplesyrup]

For starters, I didn’t vote for McGinn the last term.

At first the attempt to sink the tunnel made me really angry with McGinn but at least with the tunnel mess he got the state to agree to cover cost overruns. And since then he’s slowly won me over.

Part of it is that he’s not a career politician and through the segments he frequently does on KUOW in the mornings, he demonstrates a thoughtful, balanced approach to the issues that arise.

One of the key criticisms I’ve seen arise over and over is his supposed inability to get along with City Council. Even though that’s not really true for the most part, I wouldn’t even really care if it were. No mayor always gets along with City Council, and in some cases I want him challenging guys like Licata, Conlin and Rasmussen. There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

Furthermore one of the big pro-Murray arguments that he has influence in the state legislature due to his 17 years there. I’ve never had a lot of confidence in our state legislature. Why would I want one of their top guys running Seattle?

But if you take some time to see what McGinn’s actually done, the list is pretty impressive. Flip through this http://wtfhasmcginndone.com/#Hh6Wu_Uas and see for yourself.

And I like his transportation vision going forward. (http://mcginnformayor.com/issues/transportation/)

Yeah in the end the choice between Murray and McGinn looks a lot like the difference between off-white and eggshell so I won’t be crushed if McGinn loses. It’s just that he’s done a pretty good job, has learned a lot along the way, and made a lot of accomplishments. I’d hate to see that thrown away for no good reason.

Share This

[acemotel]

What Diane said. I have long admired Mr. Fox and the work he’s done to make this a better city. I have supported Murray ever since Steinbrueck dropped out, and Mr. Fox’s statements confirm my thoughts. BTW, several of these responses were really uncalled for. I don’t think it says anywhere that only West Seattle people can post here. And I would think that first-time posters have exactly the same value as those who post dozens of times daily (if not hourly). West Seattle really isn’t like that.

Share This

[JanS]

ace…if you were referring to my post (#2), I never meant that only WSeattleites could post here. I welcomed the poster, and asked if he was in the community. Unlike Diane, I am not familiar with Mr. Fox…had no idea who he is nor his history. I thought his post was very good, told us his perspective, and gave us all something to think about.

If it came across as saying Mr. Fox was not welcome, I did not mean it that way, and apologies for any misunderstanding…

Share This

[Diane]

9 days til ballots are due

Share This

[maplesyrup]

So having just read Mr. Fox’s post in depth, he seems to simultaneousely complain about the lack of affordable housing and McGinn’s support/endorsement/participation in the creation of 17000 new housing units at the expense of 6500 existing units.

I don’t buy that McGinn is directly responsible for the creation/destruction of those housing units, but if he were, wouldn’t supply and demand dictate that as a result of the changes, cost of housing is actually going down? Help me understand the argument Mr. Fox is making.

Share This

[Diane]

well, thank you for asking

https://westseattleblog.com/forum/topic/the-myth-that-density-equals-more-affordable-housing

Share This

[maplesyrup]

I dunno, that piece seems more like an advocacy for rent control and something that ignores the laws of supply and demand.

Share This

[JoB]

Seattle can’t be a thriving metopolis and still retain the look and character of a suburb…

Next time you sit on one of Seattle’s freeways for an hour you can thank those old school politicians who refused to address Seattle’s urban density and the need for public transportation

I agree whole heartedly that there is a huge need to replace low income housing units with low income housing units…

but if you are going to place blame you might ask yourself what role our city council had to play in negotiating away low income housing units?

Mike McGinn didn’t create the need for Seattle’s high density housing…

our booming job market did.

Mike McGinn didn’t write the rules..

our city council did.

If we are going to talk about why Mike McGinn shouldn’t be mayor..

shouldn’t we be talking about something he is actually responsible for?

Share This

[wakeflood]

I guess my views are morphing a bit – still haven’t picked my candidate – but after another weekend with traffic issues, I’m pondering our specific predicament on the “peninsula”.

And as they say, all politics is local.

I suspect that McGinn’s support of walkable neighborhoods and density would indicated a weakened concern with our plight? (Like, you don’t need to leave WS DO YOU??) Maybe that’s projecting as I haven’t seen if his rhetoric matches his execution – if he has indeed even addressed our transportation plight rhetorically at all?

But I assume – again, possibly erroneously – that Murray’s affiliation with WS would at the very least make him intimately familiar with our access issues, if not empathetic with them?

Open to anyone who has info regarding this topic?

Share This

[kgdlg]

I want to second JoB’s opinions above. I really don’t think McGinn can be held solely responsible for how Seattle is changing right now. From my perspective, all of what is happening right now was set in motion when the Growth Management Act was passed in the late 1990s and then written into code here in Seattle in the 2000s, after neighborhood planning was completed. McGinn, in my opinion, is no more or less “pro-development” than Nickels, or any of his predecessors. But right now, in this moment in time, we have unprecedented job growth combined with unprecedented demand for housing in Seattle combined with lack of supply (during the recession, virtually all market construction came to a halt).

One of the major failings of the GMA is the PROMISE of concurrency, which has never really materialized. We have unprecedented growth, yet we are faced with cuts to Metro every year. There was also the plan and promise of affordable housing in every jurisdiction and even though Seattle has an affordable housing levy, it barely makes a dent in the need across the City.

Put simply, in my opinion, we do not have the tools to enforce the ideals of the GMA, so we are just left with growth that feels like a runaway train. I do think we will hit a saturation point some time soon, and we will likely see rents soften for a short period while some developments are put on hold (restricting supply). But I don’t believe this will lead to long term affordability, as developers essentially control when projects get built in order to control supply, and hence rents. It is the nasty ups and downs of the real estate cycle and as long as we have so many Fortune 500 companies headquartered here, and growing, we will be a City that people want to move to. I fear that we will soon be San Francisco, with all working class people living in suburbs, yet we don’t have the BART or high capacity transit to move folks around more sustainably.

Sorry, this is not at all about McGinn or Murray, more about the macro-problems our region faces at this moment in time.

Share This

[wakeflood]

Good points, k, and I concur. Have the candidates spoken on this topic including potential solutions? We’ve got some crossover with the Sound Transit Long Term Planning discussion that is starting now.

I know the PSRC used to post their resolutions and positions on topics like growth and sustainability and they usually hosted forums. I’ll go check their website now to see what they’ve posted from the candidates – if anything.

Share This

[kgdlg]

Here is an interesting site that a colleague of mine put together, to try to tease out of each candidate their opinions on “socially responsible development”.

http://srd.n-theory.com/

Share This

[Diane]

fyi Murray re transit & TOD (Transit Oriented Development) aka all those apts being built on our WS transit corridor with little or zero parking

http://murray4mayor.com/issues/

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION

Enhancing and preserving our local transit and transportation options is a matter of economic and environmental necessity, not merely of convenience. Seattle needs rapid, efficient transit options connecting our neighborhoods, and a coherent transportation system connecting us with the growing density in our region’s inner-ring suburbs.

As Mayor, Ed will:

Create the Move Seattle Strategy; a prioritized comprehensive transportation strategy for Seattle that integrates and prioritizes our bike, pedestrian, transit and freight plans; staying true to the goals of each plan while recognizing transportation must work as a system linked to land use. Ed’s strategy will prioritize our investments and match priorities to funding opportunities so we don’t just plan work but actually secure funding, deliver projects and improve our transportation system.

Lead the charge to bring Sound Transit 3 to the ballot by 2016 by rebuilding relationships and leveraging his connections to turn the unfulfilled, go-it-alone light rail promises from the current mayor into a successful partnership to expand rail and connect more neighborhoods in Seattle. Ed is the only candidate who has the track record of success, relationships and leadership needed to secure the new revenue authority from the state to get this done.

Use his strong relationship with King County Executive Constantine, Governor Inslee, the legislature and regional leaders to secure additional funding options to preserve and expand the Metro transit system in Seattle. Ed will partner with King County to make RapidRide rapid, better connect our neighborhoods and make speed and reliability improvements so our buses are faster and arrive when we expect them to.

Reduce the growing $1.8 billion safety and maintenance backlog by renewing the transportation levy to pave more streets, better maintain our bridges, build the bicycle and pedestrian improvements we need and want and deliver more neighborhood projects suggested and prioritized by neighbors, while not diverting the base transportation budget to other uses.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND GROWTH

There is no one size fits all approach to dealing with growth. Our city is growing and people need to live somewhere. It will be the job of the next mayor to accommodate that growth in ways that minimize disruption and negative impacts. Our goal must be to create compact, walkable, bikeable, transit-supported, green neighborhoods where Seattle residents can continue to enjoy a high quality of life and a positive urban living experience.

As Mayor, Ed will:

Develop a long-term plan to put density where we have the infrastructure and transit to support it in order to protect the unique character of our neighborhoods and keep what we love about Seattle while we grow

Focus new growth on areas, like South Lake Union, where we can and should increase density. By doing that we will reduce development pressure on single-family residential neighborhoods.

Support the responsible development of micro-housing. While not for everyone, micro-housing is another important option for younger residents, singles, and lower-income residents of the city. This needs to be done in a manner that does not allow developers to game loopholes in the current zoning codes, and that will require a consistency of regulatory interpretations across all city departments.

Share This

[wakeflood]

So, there’s your rhetoric. All good stuff. Now, what’s his voting record show from his Olympia days re: transpo and how does he propose to pay for the not inexpensive items listed above?

I’m in favor of taxing myself for enhanced livability, do it all the time. Want to know who’s got the guts to get behind the good ideas we should tax ourselves to achieve.

Share This

[Author]

Posts