Peter Steinbrueck Is Running for Mayor
The Former Council Member Enters a Crowded Race, but with More City Hall Experience Than the Rest
Kelly O
PETER STEINBRUECK Son of Victor Steinbrueck, who led the fight to save Pike Place Market.
Tools
You could argue that Peter Steinbrueck, who filed paperwork this week to run for mayor, has defined the city's vision over the last five years more than anyone else. During his tenure on the Seattle City Council, he wrote the preamble to the city charter—essentially the city's mission statement—after discovering "there was no preamble, there was no vision statement for the City of Seattle," he says.
"Can you believe that?"
Stranger Personals
"So I crafted a single paragraph," Steinbrueck continues, and he put that text on the ballot in 2007. "It was a small thing, but there's a principle there. The city should have a vision, and the leadership should have a mission that is longer serving than the here and now, the day to day, and the latest building boom. Former mayor Greg Nickels rebelled against it. He said it was silly. But I got support and got the damn thing passed."
Now the city's first directive, among other populist goals, is to act in the "general welfare of the people."
Five years later—after leaving a council seat he'd held for a decade to go back to his roots in architecture, urban planning, and consulting—Steinbrueck is ready to return to city hall, this time as mayor, because, he says, "I don't feel the city has strong leadership right now." If you want an example of the current mayor being "reactionary," Steinbrueck says, look at the police department, which is undergoing serious reforms only after the US Department of Justice demanded a federal court settlement to correct patterns of excessive force. To take charge, Steinbrueck says the police chief should be "put up for confirmation" periodically by the mayor and the council.
Steinbrueck also envisions preserving industrial lands for industrial uses, moving the proposed Sonics arena out of Sodo and into Rainier Valley or to the Eastside, developing dedicated rights-of-way for buses, and returning more decisions about density and construction rules to neighborhood groups.
"He's a unique candidate who has supported and defended the maritime and industrial businesses," says one of his early boosters, Vince O'Halloran, local branch agent for the Sailors' Union of the Pacific and prominent figure among Seattle's labor bloc. "The maritime industry has the same impact in Washington as the airplane industry, but we are never recognized. This is a maritime city: We've got the Sounders, the Seahawks, the Mariners—good grief. Seattle has so much to lose in our industrial base, and it should be protected far more aggressively, and Peter seems to be taking that position."
Steinbrueck's platform may appeal to a broad coalition that is increasingly disaffected by recent decisions in city hall (such as siting an arena in Sodo and allowing larger buildings to develop throughout Seattle). By uniting these industrial and neighborhood groups, he could carve out a coalition that hands him both money and foot soldiers in the mayor's race.
But Steinbrueck, who once represented the council's more progressive wing, is quick to point out that he isn't an anti-density freak. He sponsored legislation for one of the greatest height increases in downtown when he was on the council, while also using his leverage to extract more affordable housing from the deal (despite resistance from developers). And as for 65-foot-tall buildings—the type that some neighborhood groups have resisted? "I like 65-foot buildings," he says. "I live in one."
After five years out of office—and the public spotlight—Steinbrueck enters a heavyweight tournament of active politicians. His competitors include Mayor Mike McGinn, Council Member Tim Burgess, and a political giant at the height of his career, state senator Ed Murray, who celebrated the state's first same-sex weddings this month after a seven-year legislative battle for marriage equality. Others have also tossed their hat in the ring, including neighborhood activist Kate Martin and real-estate broker Charlie Staadecker.
But Steinbrueck sees an opening.
After all, the top-two primary election in August will be sliced into slivers, potentially allowing a candidate with less than a quarter of the vote to advance to the November ballot. He will rely in part on name recognition that approaches the closest thing Seattle has to a dynasty: He's the son of Victor Steinbrueck, a hallowed civic figure who led the fight to save the Pike Place Market and preserve Pioneer Square. "I'm fairly well known in Seattle, and I don't have to spend money making a name for myself," Steinbrueck acknowledges. "Can I win? I think so. I have friends and supporters everywhere that go well beyond what's been going on the last few years at city hall."
Also in his favor: This election is widely seen as a referendum on Mayor McGinn, who had never been elected to office before 2009. Many people attribute McGinn's callow-to-bungling management of the police department and his having testy relationships with other lawmakers as his greatest weaknesses; in response, this race is evolving into a test of who has the experience and temperament to run city hall. Steinbrueck's decade on the council, which includes two years as the council's president, gives him more city hall experience than anyone else running for mayor. And as voters seek a steady hand on the city's tiller, Steinbrueck can essentially run as the most seasoned and accomplished candidate on the ballot.
Of course, there are hurdles. His strongest track record—appealing to neighborhood and industrial interests—could trigger his strongest opposition. For instance, Steinbrueck advanced a bill in 2006 that prevented 5,100 acres of industrial land from being converted into office and retail spaces, essentially blocking Sodo from becoming a mixed-use commercial area. And he was among the most prominent critics of the basketball arena, saying, "I am not at all accepting of the Sodo site at this time."
"He wants to make it 1976 forever," says Brian Robinson, leader of the group Save Our Sonics. "Peter Steinbrueck is an obstructionist candidate who hopes to use theatrics, fear of change, and an anti-development platform to get through a crowded mayoral primary. Sonics fans in the region will never allow him to be mayor of this city."
Another hurdle for Steinbrueck is being branded with the "L" word—not a lesbian, but a lobbyist. He contends that his lobbying positions are consistent with his personal convictions. "I do some lobbying, but it's a tiny part of what I do," he explains. Steinbrueck has done work recently on behalf of the Port of Seattle to oppose the arena in Sodo.
In addition, Steinbrueck has recently taken work with the Washington State Department of Transportation (as a historic architect for settlement issues along the deep-bore tunnel alignment), the Pike Place Market Preservation & Development Authority (for waterfront design), a University District group (advocating that the future light rail station have a park atop of it instead of a building), and Virginia Mason Medical Center (helping with its land-use planning). And finally, he's working on behalf of the South Lake Union Community Coalition, which is lobbying the city to restrict a proposal for 400-foot towers in South Lake Union.
Which presents another challenge for Steinbrueck: raising money. Because, just to state the obvious here, employees at companies like Amazon, Clise Properties, the University of Washington, Vulcan, and other major stakeholders in South Lake Union are historically vital to funding campaigns. Already, mayoral candidates have begun hauling in significant sums: Murray has locked up $123,000, McGinn reported roughly $95,000 at the end of November, Staadecker had reported $58,000, and Burgess had reported $26,000. Steinbrueck will need to catch up.
But then, money isn't everything.
McGinn won in 2009 with little cash and a strong ground game. And Steinbrueck's vow to once again give neighborhood groups a larger role in crafting zoning regulations could be a rallying cry, says Seattle Neighborhood Coalition organizer Bill Bradburd. Those sort of activists—and there are hundreds of them in this city—could mobilize for Steinbrueck in a way that gives him an uncanny advantage in winning votes. "The neighborhood voice in Seattle has been marginalized over the last decade," Bradburd says. "It's pretty clear that Peter aims to correct that." 
1
Can I just say what an idiot Brian Robinson is? "Sonics fans in the region will never allow him to be mayor of this city." Really dude. There's 50.1% majority of single issue voters out there and that issue is the new Sonics' arena. Get a fucking grip.
6
Steinbruck may or may not be a "freak", but his anti-density instincts are well documented. An endorsement from John Fox is all you need to know.
10
Consider the sweetheart deal the POS just gave Hanjin. Steinbrueck's anti-arena stance is a tad hypocritical.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/…
Remember that quote about Newt Gingrich--he's a dumb person's idea of a smart person? Well, Peter Steinbrueck is an pro-sprawl nimby's ideal of an environmentalist. With friends like Steinbrueck, we don't need enemies.
14
15
It's amusing how easy it is to craft them so they push your buttons and you do what they want.
But, believe in your "logical" choices, if you must.
Of course he did. He was paid to, as a lobbyist for the Port of Seattle.
18
Is his position a good one? No, but McGinn was an emotionally elected mayor (remember he was going to listen to us and be a furry teddy bear?) and look where that go us.
Frankly, I'm not impressed with anyone running except for Murray...and we need him in the Senate more than we need him in Seattle.
But yes, you're right that the anti-housing kick that is bubbling up again is an emotional reaction. There needs to be an equally passionate reaction from everyone whose rents are poised to soar if Steinbrueck and the NIMBYs get their way and stop new housing construction.
21
It was neighborhoods that chose to accept density as part of the comprehensive plan, growth management act, the urban village strategy and neighborhood plans. Most of the vociferous opposition comes when the City acts outside of that framework.
For example it is the failure to provide concurrent transit amenities as density increases that has many pissed off. i.e. we don't mind more people, just tell us how the fuck they are going to get around, where their kids will go to school, where is the park space for them.
As we approach a major update to the comprehensive plan, we need leadership and voices that will drive growth in the city for the next couple of decades that makes Seattle a better place than it is today, controls gentrification and cost of living, and keeps a high standard for quality of life for both extant and our new residents.
Transit, complete streets, open space and other public amenities are the grand bargain that is to come with density. NIMBY? I think not. Unless you believe that density and tall towers are the only indicator of success for a city.
Steinbrueck understands this. As do the people that live in the neighborhoods.
A few wankers on this thread apparently don't...
22
The new construction in this city is geared 100% at the bizarrely, apparently limitless number of people who can afford it without a second thought. Where all the people who can pay $2000 a month for rent, or $500,000 for a 1B condo, are coming from I dunno. But they're here. If you can't, you're going to have to move to the middle of nowhere whether they build 65-footers or not.
I don't think the middle class or lower really has representation in city government.
Overall I think we've won the density argument (see: City Target, light rail systems under construction in most major cities nationally, etc.). Developers know this too and they're looking to roll their capital where more people are going, which is not into the suburbs.
In terms of city growth our definition of success should be density + quality of life, not simply density.
And giving more control to neighborhood groups? Why should we give control over a bunch of unelected busybodies who purport to represent their neighborhood but in reality only represent the narrow self-interests of a chosen few.
I could take or leave McGinn, but this guy? Whoever's running against him will get my vote and my campaign contribution.
To #21, 22, and 23: Amen. I'm a member of the city’s largest neighborhood group that you’ve never heard of – the 31 year old Seattle Neighborhood Coalition - until Dominic mentioned us after attending our November meeting. We meet for a delicious breakfast every second Saturday at the Union Bay Café, 5109 Shilshole Ave NW. With full bellies, articulate seasoned citizens then proceed to speak truth to power. Join us to learn more, just don’t park on the tracks! Special offer until further notice: First breakfast free to any working journalist.
There has been no bigger single factor in pushing jobs and housing to Bellevue during the past 20 years than the regressive, anti-urban policies that Peter championed before and during his time on City Council.
@21, you're right that there's a good deal of starry-eyed naivete surrounding Peter. In my experience, 99% of it is coming from Peter's supporters.
30
His signature accomplishment during his years on the City Council? Adding a preamble to the City Charter! You can't make that shit up. In fact, it sounds like an advertisement for Murray, or Burgess, or even McGinn.
@22 new construction itself won't be low-rent or even affordable for many workers. That's not where it has value. New construction helps keep existing rents in place and prevents displacement of existing tenants. If people have the money to afford new construction, they can go for that, and leave people alone where they already live. Cut off new construction, however, and you simply repeat San Francisco's experience where new density has generally been banned for 30 years and the result is an unaffordable city.
@23 the problem is that the people Steinbrueck is appealing to believe that density and quality of life are incompatible. I don't think there's an issue more important for this city than adding more density and the grade-separated passenger rail to serve it. There are a lot of people who feel the same way. Probably not a majority of the electorate, but enough to play a key role in determining who makes it out of the primary. And they're not going to abide someone like Steinbrueck telling them Seattle has to grow slower.
32
Electing city council by districts, like the county does, would be more democratic. I like democracy, we should try it, rather than this coalition of neighborhood breakfast clubs bullshit. This is a city, lets try acting like it.
There is no yesteryear nostalgia here. He has been paid to run by lobbyist money, it's his job.
33
As I was drafting this rant, it occurred to me that Peter Steinbrueck was actually on the Council at the time the Stadium Overlay was enacted. And yes, it took about five minutes to figure out that the "Stadium Transition Area Overlay District" was created pursuant to City Ordinance 113161, passed unanimously by the City Council on June 12, 2000, when you-know-who was on the City Council.
Like I say, you can't make this shit up.
It seems he wants one job with ego stroking rather than 5 jobs without. There is absolutely no point in continuing to mention his father, because Peter is not Victor. It's actually difficult to determine who Peter is, because the City's quite a bit different from when he was on the Council (when it was also hard to determine who he was), and the lobbyist jobs he's been doing are pretty diffuse.
The lesbians dress like him
They are make the fucking pretend, after all.
What don't you get?
He wants to put the Sonics NEAR HOME?
Oh wait, that's gentrification.
Or is it URBAN PIONEERING?
Wait, no its not.
You're too busy watching the W fucking NBA.
Ever had to wait an hour to get 100 yds on Mercer during rush hour?
No?
Regards,
Bizworldusa
Also rents have as much to do with demand (desire to live in Seattle) as supply (new construction). By the logic "more housing=reasonable rents" Manhattan should be a bargain. A bit (but not exactly) like the logic that says more freeways will get rid of traffic. Seattle will continue to be a desirable place to live in the foreseeable future and rents will continue to be relatively high to historic standards. But, one way to guarantee there are at least some reasonable rents is having some spine and making sure there are significant amounts of affordable housing stipulations in development deals.
45
With comments such as those @37 it's little wonder that you were asked to resign from the SHA board.
WELCOME TO USA IN 2013
For the record Yusuf, I've NEVER posted anything to Slog (or anywhere else) about you. I've never met you, but I've heard plenty of stories. Your unfounded accusations against me and the candidates for mayor confirm to me what I've heard about you - that you're a complete piece of shit.
52
or you can just fill up every building envelope with ugly lego style blocks, like ocurring in the big projects in ballard today.
the density argument has won. now, it's time to make GOOD density, not CRAP density.
go down to mercer. there's an amazon building with a facade on mercer that is a huge blank wall. it fuckin sucks. it's not attractive. it's not vibrant. it's not going to be filled with people hanging out on the sidewalk. it sucks. much of the new ballard buildings are the same way; blank walls of glass straight up from the same four foot wide sidewak that was there before. just a big pile of dwelling units plopped down. we need more corners like the one in front of la coupole, more plazas like farragut square, more ubran space like dupont circle, more buildings like the kennedy warren, and not just the same old mixed use rectangular pieces of shit we are getting today, and no, adding a tower on top of a rectangular block podium doens't help. the issue isn't the height. it's the the street level facade to facade distance, number one, and what's in the public space number two, and this takes an entirely new approach that we're not even talking about. our debates focusing on height or givebacks for affordable housing do NOTHING to make the urban forms BETTER. when the problem is they are ugly blocks leaving the public space undeveloped, and too narrow, and too often facing blank walls of glass or maybe, woohoo, some dog shit colored sem orange panels that say nothing and speak the pattern language of blah.
I've never been a tremendous Peter fan, but after the present and at least previous three mayors (back to Rice, but probably the two prior to him as well), every effing mayor has been a mayor for the welfare of the Community Development Roundtable, not the public's welfare.
McGinn has been a major disappointment, but we really didn't expect all that much to begin with.
Murray has done pretty much a half-assed job on the major issues, although certainly he's been better than a complete conservative.
Martin or Steinbrueck, two great choices!!!!!
63
Right, an arena that has one third of Century Link's capacity is a threat to port operations.
Your belief that Rainer Valley or Bellevue are good options is nothing more than good old NIMBYism.
The decision has already been made it's not going to be undone anymore than the DBT is.
64
We will never forget and will vote accordingly.
65
The Sonics/Thunder were just a little too eager to leave Seattle. Peter isn't responsible for them leaving. The owner would have moved them regardless. Read up on Clayton Bennett. What - you think a stadium would have kept them here? And you know what? Any organization whose loyalty to its city is that fragile and tenuous? They need to go anyway.
In all the time I've lived here, I don't think I've ever once seen this city's "progressives" display one bit of interest in Seattle's working middle class.
For the Seattle "progressive," it's entirely about poses, and the sort of the status climbing behavior that Thorstein Veblen identified more than 100 years ago in his book, Theory of the Leisure Class.
It's comical and pathetic, in a darkly humorous sort of way, to watch this city's "progressives" spew utter bullshit at every turn, and show every sign of actually believing the crap they put out.
If you build an arena at the very edge of the place you designed as the transition zone, there is no longer any transition along that edge. Go ahead and read the statute.
Also by Dominic Holden
RSS
Twitter
Comments (69) RSS