israel-licata-250.jpg

In a mere 23 hours, political newcomer Jessie Israel and 66-year incumbent Nick Licata will face off in Electionland’s latest online death match to prove who should serve on the city council. A mountain of questions already await them (read them and ask more here). There’s still time to ask, but the clock is ticking. They begin answering tomorrow from 1:00 p.m to 3:00 p.m. Here’s what Sloggers just like you have already posted:

Gerry knows times is tough in Seattle, and asks:

What do you see as possible ways to keep Seattle going with a tighter budget?

Mahtli69 takes on the oft-asked “Is Nick Licata Effective” question:

Are you able to reach compromises on your positions so as to actually get legislation passed or build coalitions within the Council?

Licata suggested killing the Capitol Hill streetcar (because buses are better, you know), and kibbies wants to know where the candidates stand on streetcars:

He also voted against and sponsored legislation to kill proposed streetcars to Queen Anne/Ballard and Montlake/U District… Do you support the expansion of Seattle’s streetcar network?

And Lena Redak wants to know about this “table” Jessie Israel wants to “bring” interest groups “to”:

Style: Jessie has been talking up bringing businesses & interest groups “to the table” a lot on the campaign trail. Can either of you name some areas where business & an interest group just simply can’t get along?

Think a question’s stupid (or good)? Then vote on their questions (the more popular questions tend to get answered first)! Got something better? Post it in Electionland NOW.

8 replies on “Licata vs. Israel…”

  1. Here is one post about the First Hill/International District/Capitol Hill Streetcar meeting last week, where Licata fought and fought to try and kill the fully-funded, voter-approved project. I read somewhere that Licata was actually booed, but I can’t find that report right now.

    This is one of only a handful of times I’ve watched City Council talk about transportation, but I’m struck by one thing here: Licata does not like this streetcar. He’s interrupted a number of times asking about how the City can get out of the agreement, whether Sound Transit can get out of the agreement, and whether we can run a trolley bus instead. He was reminded, of course, that the ST2 vote says streetcar. The money can’t be used for a trolleybus.

    http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/09/29…

    I don’t think even Licata can kill the First Hill streetcar now, but if he’s re-elected he will sure try to kill the planned streetcars to Queen Anne, the University District, and Ballard (unless he’s had a sudden change of heart on transit).

  3. Licata opposes various streetcar projects for the same reason he opposed public subsidy of Vulcan’s SLUT line: there are more necessary and efficient uses for limited city money. Kindly don’t pretend that it makes him a philosophical foe of mass transit alternatives or the hipsters who can’t deal with riding buses instead of shiny streetcars to and from their fave neighborhoods.

  5. Can’s I has streetcar? If we names teh SLU one SLUT and teh Cap Hill one CLIT, can’s we name teh one for Freemont FART?

  6. Licata does not oppose the First Hill line. That’s just bs. Read Resolution 31101 cosponsored w/Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, not supporting the development of a Streetcar Network at this time, with the exception of the First Hill line. The reason is that operations for the First Hill streetcar will be funded by Sound Transit, so there’s no cost to bus service hours. Metro will not be redistributing existing bus service hours for the First Hill Street Car.

    http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up…

  7. @1 is wrong. Licata voted for the already-paid for First Hill Streetcar earlier this week. In 2007 he voted in favor of including it in the Sound Transit ballot measure, that’s how it got paid for.

  8. #3: Licata has voted multiple times against streetcars, he was a member of Sane Transit opposing light rail, and has come out in opposition against both. This isn’t a one-time thing. He has said he’s against mass transit because buses are cheaper, yes, which is why people against funding better transit will vote for him and Mallahan.

    #6: He cosponsored that resolution because the First Hill line was funded and passed by voters. He was trying to stop any further expansion of the light rail line.

    #7: He wanted to include the First Hill Streetcar because that was the compromise for eliminating the First Hill light rail stop.

    I’m not making this up and I’m not trying to smear Licata… I’m eager to hear his answer to my question because I hope I’m wrong. I have ridden on the streetcar in Portland through the Pearl District and loved it. I think the proposed streetcar network (Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, U District, Ballard) in Seattle would be even more incredible.

    Anyway, here are some snippets from Licata, in his own words. This is why people call Licata an “obstructionist.”

    This Monday (6/25/07) the Full Council voted 7-1 (Steinbrueck excused absence) in favor of Council Bill 115917 which provides a financing plan for the operation of the South Lake Union streetcar, and approves an agreement with King County Metro to operate the streetcar. I cast the “no” vote.

    http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up…

    I remain skeptical that the case can be proven for additional streetcars, but because of my amendments the Council is now on record supporting a streetcar network, but with the caveat that it won’t provide funding until the case is proven. And the power of the purse is the fundamental power of the Council, so the statement of support has been heavily qualified. Now it will only take Council to exercise that authority when the appropriate times come.

    (In other words, he single-handedly slowed the council’s go-ahead for the streetcar network.)
    http://www.seattle.gov/council/licata/up…

Comments are closed.