Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Sunday, August 2, 2009

From the Transcripts: The Mayoral Endorsement Meetings, Part 2

Posted by on Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Mayor Greg Nickels is asked about his unpopularity.

You've been the mayor for the past eight years, but looking at your polling numbers—they're staggeringly low for someone who really does boast a résumé of having done a lot of things. It's sort of like a George W. Bush level of popularity. To be a mayor for the next four years, you need to have a certain amount of good will in escrow. How would an unpopular mayor be effective for these next four years?
You know, that's an interesting question and there's a lot of philosophical aspects to that. I made a very conscious decision when I became mayor to try and get things done, rather than to try and stay popular. I have seen executives in the governor's office, in the county executive's office who remained very popular, and at the end of their terms, no one could recite exactly what it was that they had accomplished. And I think it's more important in politics and in public office to actually get things done, to actually move the community forward. And so the fundamental job of mayor is to make decisions. Every decision you make, someone's gonna disagree with that. You learn that the first morning. And some of the decisions you make, a lot of people disagree with. The viaduct is probably a pretty good example over time, where almost everybody disagreed at one point or another. But you need to stick with it, you need to move forward, and at the end of the day, if people believe you're doing it because you sincerely are trying to advance the community, do best by the common good of the community, I think that they will support you and give you the opportunity to continue to serve.

And you think people believe that that is your intent, or do you think you have exhausted some of those relationships?
You know, I think I have some work to do in this campaign to remind people, had I not worked on light rail, at several of the points it was very vulnerable, it might not have happened, it certainly wouldn't have happened on the schedule it did, as long as that took. If I hadn't hung in there on the viaduct, we might well be seeing an elevated structure being built down there, mandated by the legislature. Yes, I think that people will, when reminded, give me credit for some of the things that we have accomplished, and with that, hopefully, see their way to supporting me, because I have been doing that in the greater interest of the community.

Is it beyond just the anger at tough decisions you've made?
Oh, I think there are a number of things going on. I think that people are frustrated and angry right now, they look at their retirement and they see that they’re gonna have to work until they’re 95 in order to retire, and the incumbent mayor's a pretty good target for that—that’s not just in Seattle, but in other cities as well. And that's something that an incumbent mayor has to understand and deal with. But I also think it's the fact that you make decisions and move the city forward. I think people want you to make decisions, and I think if they believe you're doing it in the best interest of the future of the community, they'll give you room to do that.

Tomorrow: Joe Mallahan is asked if he has ever done anything for the environment, public safety, or the arts. His answer is insane.

Part one of this series is here.

 

Comments (7) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Gee it might also have something to do with his needlessly adversarial style: trying to take sole credit for everything that required a team effort, re-branding others' ideas as his own, rewarding people for loyalty rather than expertise, his petty attempts to subvert city council independence, his pointless rivalries with Ron Sims for recognition on sustainability issues, his arrogant way of "negotiating" with other elected officials in the region.

Sad to say it, but Nickels has more lackeys and courtiers than friends. He could accomplish most of the same things he's accomplished, and probably more, with half the ill-will, if he would stop playing king of the Seattle sandbox.
Posted by Trevor on August 2, 2009 at 8:58 AM
2
Petty attempts to subvert City Council independence? Come on, Trevor, you know better than that. If we had a Council with a collective backbone, this wouldn't even be a talking point, much less a real issue.

There is always tension between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. Each branch will always take what the other gives it. You simply can't lay any perceived one-sidedness in Mayor-Council relationships solely off on Nickels.

Except for Nick Licata, none of them have stood up to him. It would be a better Council if they had, and Nickels would be a better mayor if they had.

The same goes for his relationships with "other elected officials in the region," to wit, the State Legislature. I'm not saying this to make excuses for Nickels. Heaven knows I have my own set of issues with him. But the legislature wouldn't be ceding any ground to the Seattle Mayor, whoever it was. Frank Chopp, Ed Murray, Ken Jacobsen -- just to name three -- does anyone believe that they wouldn't be seeking to impose their will on whoever sat in the Mayor's chair?

If either of these clueless lackwits Mallahan or McGinn had been Mayor during Nickels' terms, you can bet there would be an elevated Viaduct under construction. Anybody who believes otherwise can put down the crack pipe right now.

That was the solution I favored, unlike most Slog readers, but those who abhorred it in fact DO have Nickels to thank for stopping it, more so than anybody else.

"Greg doesn't play nice" is every other mayoral candidate's campaign, boiled down to the essentials. People who favor those challengers should at least be honest with themselves, because IMO that's what they're voting for.

Municipal government at this level is not for dilettantes, and most voters get that, which is why Nickels will be re-elected.
More...
Posted by ivan on August 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM
3
What I'm referring to was Nickels's order, early in 2002, that tried to prevent departments from supplying the City Council with basic information through which it could craft legislation or watchdog the executive's administration of the laws it passes. Believe it or not, Mayors before Nickels accomplished just as much, if not more, without issuing orders like that. They played hardball on issues they cared about without being so petty. They weren't threatened by others' independence. His personality quirks are political issues, whether you like it or not.

As for the viaduct, you don't think the public vote had anything to do with it? You're going to give the Mayor credit for what the People's Waterfront Coalition accomplished? That's generous of you.

Nickels has George Bush levels of approval ratings, sometimes lower. Seattle has Nickels fatigue. If he is re-elected to a third term, it won't be because of the die-hard 20% who still think he's doing a great job. It will only be because the majority of voters decided that his opponents this round were incompetent.
Posted by Trevor on August 2, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Mike 4
"I think that people are frustrated and angry right now, they look at their retirement and they see that they’re gonna have to work until they’re 95 in order to retire, and the incumbent mayor's a pretty good target for that—that’s not just in Seattle, but in other cities as well."

Totally! Because when most people look for somebody to blame for a global recession, decades of deregulation and questionable fiscal policy, they immediately think of their town mayor.
Posted by Mike on August 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Toasterhedgehog 5
Nichols is unpopular because he never met a developer he was unwilling to felate, or a poor person he didn't take a shit on.
Posted by Toasterhedgehog on August 2, 2009 at 12:30 PM
6
I think Greg makes a lot of good points in your interview. He does try to get things done, but I think he's not been well served by some of the people he's appointed, and like George W., he's loath to dump someone even after monumental screwups (I'll leave it to your imagination who I have in mind).

If Greg wants a shot at getting re-elected, he needs to promise some Change of his own. It's too late in the game to name names but he should promise a complete re-examination of all appointed executives, should voters grant him a 3rd term.

The snowstorm response didn't cut it in January and it won't cut it now; he needs to make Change part of his program.
Posted by Citizen R on August 2, 2009 at 7:18 PM
7
Trevor @ 3 says:

"If he is re-elected to a third term, it won't be because of the die-hard 20% who still think he's doing a great job. It will only be because the majority of voters decided that his opponents this round were incompetent."
--
I agree. They ARE incompetent to be mayor, every last one of them except Jan, and her campaign is more an afterthought than a real effort.
Posted by ivan on August 3, 2009 at 6:45 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy