- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm #591997
MagpieParticipantJust curious. Now that it looks like no incumbent mayor, who do you think is the best candidate for the job and why? I’m looking for compelling reasons to vote for one of them. Or is it that one just sucks less than the other?
August 21, 2009 at 5:25 pm #675261
swimcatMemberMcGinn wants to stop construction of the tunnel, so he will not get my vote. As much as I love WS, I’d love to be able to easily leave it when I go to work. Mallahan is in for a rude awakening, moving from private industry to the public sector. I can only hope he’ll be able to adapt and be able to accomplish a few things.
August 21, 2009 at 5:41 pm #675262
flowerpetalMemberI will be curious to read what others think too Magpie. I find both of the candidates inept; and I fear the City will suffer. Its too bad that Nickel’s multiple mistakes led voters to pick these two candidates.
I wonder now if Steinbruek regrets not running. I think he believed that Nickels was unbeatable. I thought that…. and I was wrong, real wrong!
August 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm #675263
johnnyblegsMemberHopefully NOT McGinn. If his anti-tunnel stance isn’t a “get those votes” ploy he will further delay a solution to the viaduct. Every Seattleite just wants something done. We voted no for the tunnel. Nickels & Olympia threw our vote out and decided to build the tunnel. The current Governor wants it, I want it, so let’s just get it done. No more stalling. I’m sick of it. Mallahan may not be great but we could always vote Steinbruek in 2013.
August 21, 2009 at 8:50 pm #675264
flowerpetalMemberI like your optimism johnnyblegs. Steinbrueck for Mayor in 2013!
August 22, 2009 at 12:50 am #675265
JeffroMemberIt really irks me that McGinn wants to make this a referendum on the tunnel. My impression of Mallahan is that he is a Republican in sheep’s clothing, but as long is it’s strictly about the tunnel then I have no choice but to support him.
McGinn should remind himself that while Seattle voters did reject a cut-and-cover tunnel, they also resoundingly rejected a street-level highway. I personally would have voted for the deep bore tunnel if it were an option at the time.
McGinn seems more politically aligned with the rest of the city, but he seems bent on making a competitive election out of one that should be a runaway. Both candidates seem pretty amateur-hour, enough that I would be more comfortable with Goodspaceguy Nelson running the place.
August 22, 2009 at 2:46 am #675266
JanSParticipantflowerpetal, I’m with you.. Magpie, right now I feel like I’m going to be voting for the lesser evil. I don’t want the tunnel thing to get delayed anymore. The decision was made, and it should not be thrown out , just to start over. I don’t mind McGinn, but he needs to wake up and get his head out of the sand re:this issue. Once more, West Seattle is treated like the ugly step-child (sorry about the comparison). Seems that the candidates forget about this large segment of the population over here. Again, I say they need to be required to come live here, and have to commute by bus/bike to work during rush hour. Bet that would change something ;-)
I think it’s gonna be a rude awakening for either guy, whoever wins.
August 22, 2009 at 4:37 am #675267
hammerheadParticipantI guess i am one of the few who DON”T WANT the tunnel. I travel it all the time. I can not afford to pay my employees to sit a car while trying to get to my jobs on queen anne. NO i don’t not want the tunnel. I never made a vote for hwy 99 to be toren down. the gov and mayor just made the decision for (me)us. just repair it the way it is that is much cheaper and I won’t loose my jobs.
August 22, 2009 at 5:12 am #675268
JanSParticipanthammerhead, don’t get me wrong. I wanted them to re do the viaduct from the beginning…that’s the easiest way. I just don’t want this to start over at Square One, or nothing will get done in the next 10 years on that viaduct.
August 22, 2009 at 5:29 am #675269
hammerheadParticipanti guess with all the money we have thrown at making bike lanes and odd changes in roads like the “blip” down at the cactus on alki. and now all the parks being closed or not being taken care “of” really? and we can build a F****N tunnel really?
health insurance is much more important than a tunnel.
just saying:)
August 22, 2009 at 7:07 am #675270
Heinz57MomMemberI don’t want the tunnel either. I used to commute to Greenlake before I started my home based biz and it’s a real pain in the a$$ to have traffic backed up the length of the viaduct because of an accident in the tunnel!
Something I haven’t heard any of the politicians address with regards to their support of a tunnel.
August 22, 2009 at 7:19 am #675271
angelescrestParticipantI heard McGinn on KUOW at noon. I know nothing about him, but he appears thoughtful; he mulls things over. It seemed to me not so much the tunnel, but the costs involved that motivate his concerns. He has interesting–and controversial– ideas about Seattle Public Schools (and has kids who attend). I’d like to hear more.
August 22, 2009 at 9:15 am #675272
acemotelParticipantHammerhead said: and now all the parks being closed or not being taken care “of” really?
What parks are you speaking of in Seattle that are being closed? I don’t know of any parks in the city that are being closed. We just passed a parks levy. We are building MORE parks, not closing them.
angelcrest: I heard McGinn speaking about SPS too, but my god, man! Schools are not the purview of the mayor. I am really worried about this guy’s inexperience. If he wins the election, the public will chew him up and spit him out in no time.
August 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm #675273
hammerheadParticipantace motel sorry they are LOSING there maintenance funding. sorry about that. so some of they even become unsafe.
story ran on komo 4 news. don’t know how to send link.
don’t even get me started on KCAC being closed. good god
August 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm #675274
ErikParticipantHammer – It’s King County Parks facing the axe, not City of Seattle.
August 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm #675275
sam-cParticipantyeah, the Seattle parks aren’t closed. just taking away all the trash cans.
August 22, 2009 at 7:38 pm #675276
JohnsonMemberAfter he tears down the viaduct and lets the grass grow in the downtown streets, i understand McGinn wants to reserve the W. Seattle Bridge for foot & bike traffic.
but he’ll wait for his 2nd term to do that
;-)
(for the satire impaired: here’s a dime, please buy a sense of humor)
August 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm #675277
HuindekmiParticipantMcGinn has already lost my vote, and not just because of his tunnel stance.
First, he’s running on three issues: the tunnel, improved bus service and improved schools. Two of those are not even under the control of the mayor’s office. If he wants a say in bus service, he needs to be running for King County Executive. If he wants a say in the schools, he should be running for the Legislature or the School Board. He doesn’t even seem to understand what the mayoral position entails. Or at best he wants to put his nose in other people’s jobs once in the position.
Second, his rationale for not supporting the tunnel is horribly flawed. He claims that the tunnel will be too expensive, then states that an I-5 and surface street option will be cheaper. But that still doesn’t repair the seawall and waterfront utilities. This is work that needs to be done, is incorporated into the cost of the tunnel work, but is completely ignored by the McGinn camp. If you take this work into account along with the fact that the state money will disappear when he kills the approved tunnel, the option McGinn supports will cost the city of Seattle MORE.
And don’t even get me started about traffic. The surface street option, even with improvements, cannot handle the traffic we have now, let alone accommodating any future growth. Just try to go somewhere on one of those weekends when the viaduct is closed. Last I checked, traffic backed up on I-5 past Boeing Field and all the way to the top of the West Seattle Bridge. The optimistic projections of the surface option assume that a significant portion of the people current driving can be coerced into riding the bus. If the bus were convenient enough for people to use, they’d be taking it now. Making traffic worse to make the bus seem better, despite the fact that it will be stuck in the same traffic, is not a viable solution. The surface option is just an invitation for businesses to relocate OUT of Seattle.
McGinn would be an absolute disaster if elected mayor. It would be even worse if Hutchison is elected King County Exec at the same time. Picture a mayor whose policies rely heavily on mass transit but is in no position to improve service at the same time KC has an exec who is staunchly opposed to putting more money into mass transit and actually holds the purse strings. The standoff would destroy this city.
August 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm #675278
MagpieParticipantIt would be great if we could get Mallahan and McGinn in to West Seattle for a debate on why they think they deserve the WS vote. I always remember the earthquake when the viaduct was closed for several days…maybe they want us all to walk downtown. It will take less time if than taking the bus if the surface street is what they come up with. I hate it when I have to vote for the lesser of two evils…
August 22, 2009 at 11:00 pm #675279
JanSParticipantMagpie…so let’s invite them. Surely, there must be a way to do that.
August 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm #675280
acemotelParticipantMcGinn and Mallahan, and any other hopefuls, would come out to any community council or group that invites them, no doubt.
August 23, 2009 at 4:30 pm #675281
JoBParticipantI would go to hear them if they spoke here and the questions were West Seattle related.
I share McGinn’s concerns about cost over-runs on the tunnel.. but the longer we wait the higher they are likely to run.. there has never been a better time economically to build a tunnel and to seriously oversee costs.
And.. we can’t afford to simply wait for another solution to rear it’s ugly head… the voters sent the best and cheapest option for solving all of the waterfront issues.. the covered tunnel.. to the bottom of the bay… at the behest of the downtown business groups who were concerned it would cost them too much.
transportation issues need to be addressed as transportation issues.. not political footballs and i don’t see McGinn doing that.
On the other hand, Mallahan scares the bejeezus out of me. It’s not just that he has no political experience.. it’s that he really doesn’t seem to see any concerns other than business concerns…
I don’t want to be driving on the Viaduct the day our Mayor realizes it might have been a good idea to build the tunnel.. but i am not so keen on electing Mallahan either.
Maybe Nichols wasn’t so bad after all?
Can we have a do-over?
While we are at it.. can we drop the bag fee to a dime and try again?
August 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm #675282
MagpieParticipantJoB looks like Danny Westmeath came to a similar conclusion in the paper today. We may actually wish that we had voted for Nickels in a year. Only time will tell. And what’s with promising to do things that you don’t have control over as mayor?
Maybe the new mayor can hire the old one as a consultant…Is it too late for a write in campaign?
August 23, 2009 at 7:05 pm #675283
JanSParticipantwhat’s that old saying? “We have met the enemy and he is us”? We (the citizens of Seattle) have done this, guess we have to accept part of the responsibility? I voted for none of them, thank-you very much.
August 23, 2009 at 7:58 pm #675284
JoMemberHear, hear, JanS.
I voted for Nickels, not because I loved him so much, but because I really didn’t want any of the others.
I’m sorry, folks, but both McGinn and Mallahan are scary!
I never did hear any mention of Public Safety from those two, while Nickels has an excellent record with Police/Fire.
And, as JanS said, We (the citizens of Seattle) have done this to ourselves, so now we get to live with it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.