City Council Issues Hysterical Press Release; Refuses to Talk About It


I can't imagine them not leaping to take your call. I also can't believe they've refused to hire a PR person to go up against the mayor's. Really, what sort of hubris keeps them from matching pro vs. pro?
Can you hear that?


It's like a Giant Sucking Sound as the Billionaires' Tunnel absorbs the taxes and fees that would otherwise go to repairing roads, replacing street lights, building sidewalks, building bike paths, paying for additional transit during these major changes, providing police officers, maintaining existing parklands, making sure kids can walk safely to schools ....

All for one thing ... the Billionaires Tunnel that the Billionaires and Millionaires and their Developer friends want you to pay for from PUBLIC taxes for their PRIVATE profit.

Just to give you VIEWS that won't exist 4-5 years after the tunnel is built when the Developers use the new zoning Council approved this decade allowing them to block the "new views" they promised you would "appear" when the Viaduct went away.

Aren't you happy?

So the Council is acting like children. They didn't like McGinn's proposal so they pretend it doesn't exist -- even though it forms the basis for their current proposal. They're also attempting to rewrite history, to make it seem as though it was all their idea.

This on top of the vague threats of lost state money, invoking improbable scenarios where we lose control of our waterfront and their general distaste for civility.

Of course, reviewing basic civics with a focus on Seattle, we find that in a strong mayor system such as ours, there's typically a year of this council whining before they calm down. It happened with Nickels, Rice and Royer.

This sort of childish behavior (like Godden's skirting Godwin's Law, for example) is to be expected.
Er, in other words: don't assume that the city is broken for shit like this. If you knew half the stuff that less populous cities in this region go through on a daily basis, you'd be thankful that the only problem we have is the council and mayor lobbing thinly veiled "fuck you"s back and forth.
No surprise the Council won't call Dominic back, since he's the press puppet of one-issue Mayor McGinn. The point the Council (and Dominic is proving by providing the dates) is that McGinn has been MIA on the seawall since his doomed proposal from January. He seems to spend ALL his time fighting the tunnel. If McGinn were a leader he'd take the elevator downstairs and talk to the Council one at a time. Fact is, they never see him or talk to him. All they get from him is press releases. Whether he's right or wrong on the tunnel doesn't matter -- he has no credibility with them because he doesn't understand that the way to make the city work goes right through the council chambers.
Sandman @5: If McGinn were a leader he'd take the elevator downstairs and talk to the Council one at a time. Fact is, they never see him or talk to him. All they get from him is press releases.

So Sandman, you must be a City Council staffer. Otherwise, how would you be privy to this sort of information?

The City Council (or a majority of the City Council) is beginning to remind me of the Republicans in the United States Congress who keep accusing President Obama of refusing to talk to them when their whole political strategy is premised on their refusing to talk to him.

Am I happy with the mayor's record at "bipartisanship"? No, although I'm not enough of an insider (like you, Sandman, apparently are) to judge. But I'm thinking now that councilmembers like Burgess and Conlin and Bagshaw have made the conscious decision that it's in the best interest of themselves and their agenda to discredit the mayor and his agenda, rather than cooperate in the best interest of the city. And that press release doesn't exactly smack of a desire to cooperate. For all his alleged bumbling, can anyone imagine Mike McGinn issuing such a petty, graceless communiqué?
The council has asked since he arrived to let the council know what he wanted to do and when. He has not done that, and they are trying to sort out funding for a variety of things with very little input from the executive.

Btw, Holden, the council did not "crib" together the mayor's seawall proposal, it was presented on 6/21/2010, during the AWV sub-committee meetings, in context of other known capital items. Mayor Secret Squirrel provided incomplete information. The mayor's drone admitted that they still did not have a much more input than they had already released months ago.
See slide #9…

As other have said, it is no wonder none of those people, other than your man, McGinn, responded.
MrBaker @8, thanks for the slides. Actually, I like Option 2 (the council's) a bit better than Option 1 (the mayor's), but it looks like we're too late to put anything on the ballot for 2010. Shame.
@6, see my post above, better yet, watch the Seattle Channel webcast of the 6/21/2010 AWV meeting. It was a little strange to see the council working really hard to get meaningful information from the mayor's staff on the seawall budget, and any other thing they could get in an effort to make the best possible decision on how the seawall fits into any other off the cuff idea the mayor has announced. They gave nothing because they had nothing to give.
I am not a staffer, I have an interest, and the internet.

If I were a McGinn cheerleader, like Holden, I would be concerned that the mayor really doesn't have a good grasp of the job, and his ability to deliver his idillic world to you is at risk of failure because he is lost.
Staff guesstimated that in August or September they would have more.

I think we will get a clear picture of what the mayor wants to do next year from his budget proposal, but I would nit expect too much more.
There were a couple things I thought McGinn could lead on, and improve, but I am not convinced that he knows what he wants to do, or how to do it.

Key item, MrBaker:

McGinn made a similar levy proposal in January — aimed for last month's ballot — but got a chilly response from members of the City Council, who said they didn't want to be rushed.

It's a total fabrication to say McGinn has not discussed any of this with the Council, and it's even more of a fabrication for them to feign shock and pretend McGinn has done nothing when it's clear, even from a Seattle Times piece, that the amount of information made available was enough to formulate multiple plans.

He's pushed the idea and they ignored him. He offered alternatives, they ignored him. He's been trying to pull them along and work with them, but they've repeatedly obstructed him. Now they're trying to claim victory and pretend this was all their doing.

Trying to wave your hands and make it all go away while wrapping it all up in a miserable and poorly-plotted examination of the job he's done so far is not going to suddenly make the Council come out on top.

They've misrepresented their stake and you've lied to bolster their positions.

Bravo, you're a hack.
Btw, Nick Licata was correct last January (February?) when he said the special election, or even a Fall election is not important because the taxes would not take effect until the next budget is accepted and taxes collected next year. We could have voted last March and the tax would not get collected until next year.
The rush to vote was a rush to vote.

What is really going to hurt the mayor next year is not participating in this capital budget discussion this summer.
The council will consume all available funds and bonding capacity with what they know, because, that is the the best they can do absent the mayor's input.

So, a snippy press release is the least of the mayor's cheerleader's problems.
Nobody, including the mayor, have no idea how much his west side light rail will cost or (much more importantly) how.
@12, I did not say he "has not discussed any of this with the Council".

If you remember, he was invited to the council to have a chat. In that meeting he was given useful information, like, when such would actually get collected and when you would have to vote on it. Having a special election would flush a million bucks down the toilet.
You might want to stop relying on the "journalists" and just watch the webcasts of these meetings.
McGinn agreed in that meeting that the tax would not get collected any sooner, that a later election would still accomplish the same thing. The council at that time made it clear that they would be working on capital budget planning involving major projects and, as you can see from the link I provided, the council was given pretty much what the mayor handed out last January.

The mayor is going to study light rail next year, I know that from his interview on the Dave Ross Show last month, with a friendly Ross badgering the mayor for an answer, that answer was soft.
How about you tell me the light rail plan, I'll send it along to the council because the mayor's office hasn't done that yet (see the link, and the absence of light rail).
In short, I did not lie, I actually watch the actual meetings, and listened to their actual words.

The "press" is not very useful in depicting what happens in an hour long meeting reduced to a few paragraphs and a paper selling headline.
How about posting a link to the mayor's capital proposals all together that says about how much they will cost, when he wants to implement them, and proposals on how they should be funded.

I would be very interested in seeing it.
Just think, when the viaduct collapses, no one will have to do anything! Win-win all around I say.

And that's just the summary of the report given to the council.

As far as your statements regarding the CIP, you're off-base. Actually, for your ranting on that alone you should be shot into low earth orbit for the delight of the watching masses as you reenter in a flaming bolt. The mayor presents the CIP with the budget in September, prepared of his own accord as directed by the prior budget pursuant to the city charter. This is how it works. Demanding the CIP early proves what you know about the process.

I'd also like to point out that you reference 6/21 as your primary source of information on the budget process, but neglect to inform others (or yourself, apparently) that the Department of Finance issued an update on its current CIP progress as of 7/6 (… ) -- in that update, the Department of Finance outlines, again, that the needs presented to them and their studies have all pointed to the usefulness in going to the ballot for funding.

What it boils down to, MrBaker, is you getting scooped up in mindless posturing, such as we see with the shrieking of "tell McGinn to stop proposing things for the budget that we don't like!!!". On one hand, that's the sorta thing a council does. On the other, though, well... actually, forget it. You're an easily readable person.

But please -- don't go. I want you to stick around and predict more elections.
You know, other major cities with a 20+ year congressman in DC find a way to get the feds to fund this kind of thing. I seem to remember McDermott getting about $10m a few years ago for a "study" on the seawall. I've always assumed that money went to a consulting firm tied to his PAC or a crony, as it just looked like typical pork. Now it's time to act on that "study", if it was ever really done.

Jim McDermott now has an even higher position in the House pecking order, and yet he can't get money for his district's seaport?! It's one thing to try to save the world, Jim, but Seattle counts too!
Dominic, for the last time: McGinn doesn't have a PR flak job available. And you're trying way too hard.
In related news that came out later that day (in the Suburban Times paper Tuesday), the 520 bridge is short of funds ...

Can you hear that Giant Sucking Sound yet, Seattle?

Cause it's HERE!

All your tax dollars for parks, cops, bridges, road repairs, sidewalks, bike paths, etc are belong to Billionaires Tunnel.
fuck it i'm running for something soon