I know the Stranger is a big supporter of Sawant, so it makes sense to try and poke holes in Conlin's record, but facts are facts and some of the so-called facts in this article are a bit of stretch of the imagination.

I think Conlin has been a great, progressive advocate for my city. I voted for him last time, and I'll vote for him again. I just looked up his list of endorsements and looks like his "progressive" support isn't suspect at all. Nearly all of the unions in town have endorsed him and all of the district councils. These organizations aren't made up of rich people, they're just regular folks like me.

Attacking the credibility of the Sierra Club is ridiculous and a total reach to try and find anything at all on Conlin.

This article, especially in context of the others written, is beginning to stink of personal vendetta. I'm voting for Conlin.

"There is a different kind of regime, called a progressive regime, which resists the corporate regime agenda by stressing the needs of lower-class people, dwellers of modest neighborhoods (who need good schools, safety and parks), and environmental concerns. One could imagine Seattle having such a progressive consensus, given its past history of populism and labor radicalism.
"In Seattle, however, the environmental groups have mostly joined the regime consensus, which responds by granting favors and funding and stakeholder participation. ..."
-Source: http://crosscut.com/2013/04/30/politics-…

Richard Conlin fought to prevent Peter Steinbrueck's 2007 industrial land rezone in Interbay to prevent conversion of that area to housing and retail. Conlin was an arrogant power broker in the fight between the Roosevelt neighborhood and developer Sisley. Conlin represents his donors, not Seattle neighborhoods.

Conlin is the most powerful of the nine mini-mayors currently occupying the second floor at City Hall. He is not a "progressive"--he is a neoliberal, has little concern for the needs of the working poor, and will do anything to maintain his power.

@2

"Attacking the credibility of the Sierra Club"

How'd they do that? He just showed that their support wasn't a strong one, that they have grievances and distrust in Conlin. They didn't attack the Sierra Club's credibility.

@4 & 5:

The article says: "the endorsement of a wishy-washy environmental group".

I wasn't under the impression the Sierra Club was 'wishy-washy' on their sole issue, the environment.

SC is apparently conflicted over their endorsement, and more than a little hypocritical, given Conlin's shift to the right & away from actual environmentalism. It's time for a progressive in his current office; he hasn't been so for some time.

@1 Sassy - Kshama is a Socialist, and the "district councils" as you call them are "Democrat" legislative districts. So there is no way that she could even be considered for an endorsement.

So perhaps they too, like the Sierra Club, are just holding their nose and endorsing for Conlin.

But I can tell you that many Democrats I know are supporting Sawant, sporting yard signs, and giving money.

@9 -- You're probably correct about @1's reference being to the 5 main Democratic District organizations in town (34th, 36th, 37th, 43rd, 46th -- 11th and 32nd have a few precincts in Seattle as well). Richard has had an increasingly difficult time getting endorsements from the core Seattle Districts; more and more of us see through his patina of "progressiveness." Conlin does know how to campaign, and he knows how to get his supporters out to endorsement meetings.

Count me as another D for Sawant; even though she refuses to make herself eligible for District endorsement, she is by far the more liberal candidate.

and Dominic, let's not forget that it was Richard Conlin who surreptitiously was part of the move to add corporate logos and signage to our downtown skyline...

Ah yes, Corporate logos all over the Seattle skyline...Stay classy, Conlin.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic…

I understand why the Stranger is tripping all over itself to endorse a woman of color with interesting rhetoric. The City Council is kind of......politically constipated. But Conlin is still one of the hardest working councilmembers and despite your lopsided account of what he's done, his legacy of sustainability and progressivism is strong. Conlin is responsidble for the formation of the Urban Forestry Commission, the Regional Food Policy Council, the joint development agreement between Sound Transit and the City for more affordable housing at the Capitol Hill light rail station. In fact Conlin has been the strongest and most effective advocate for the urbanist agenda that Stranger readers portend to live by. What he's not is an ideologue or shameless self promoter. You hate him because of the tunnel. This all rings of a personal vendetta and is an indication of how childish your political analysis really is. He's got my vote. And despite the Stranger's new found sense of it's own political muscle, he will win a fifth term. Only god knows why anyone would want to serve on that body for that long.

@13, re Conlin and urban forest: CM Conlin has been an anchor of delay and obstruction on green and effective urban forest policies in Seattle. As always, he is good at looking green, but when policy conflicts with the interests of developers, the developers almost always win. (Exception--Use an emergency ordinance to protect single family zones from inappropriate shoehorning of oversized houses on undersized lots during an election year; offends a few bottom feeder developers but looks great to the voters in those neighborhoods.)

If you want to learn factual information about the urban forest issue in Seattle -- not sound bites by partisans on blogs -- you need to dig. One search term that's useful is Michael Oxman, an arborist (http://treedr.net/) who has watchdogged the issue for years. Try "urban forest oxman". He has posted youtube videos of numerous hearings on Seattle's urban forest policy development over the years. E.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk5rC8TJf… (March 31, 2013, references Conlin's April 13, 2012 letter to Urban Forestry Commission recommending a weak tree conservation policy--http://www.seattle.gov/urbanforestrycomm…
).

Then look at City Council Resolution 31477 (September 16, 2013), "adopting the 2013 update of the Urban Forest Stewardship Plan". It's full of calls to action but contains no action itself. How many years have we been waiting for the Council to adopt an effective urban forest policy? This non-action is emblematic of Conlin's tenure as the "environmental" leader on the Council.

The Sierra Club and other big Enviros stopped being true environmental advocacy groups long ago. They lost their spine long ago. They're basically professional compromisers.

I think the fact that the Sierra Club opposes Council Member Conlin's reelection speaks in his favor, since the Sierra Club seems to oppose EVERY economic development.

You also forgot to mention that Conlin opposed the city paying for the new basketball stadium in SoDo:

http://crosscut.com/2012/10/01/seattle-c…

SeME, there is always EarthFirst!

um, what about plain old-fashioned term-limits???

After 16 years on the council, isn't 16 years on the council a good enough reason to get rid of most anybody?

If in doubt, toss that bum out!

Give someone else a chance to represent Seattle;

RETIRE Richard Conlin :)

Of all the CMs to try and trash, Sawant and the Stranger are off-base in my opinion.

Conlin has consistently worked incredibly hard on every issue he takes on. His trademark way of doing things is to get facts on issues, talk with people on both sides of an issue and begin deliberating or legislating-isn't that what an elected official is supposed to do? Most are not nearly so thoughtful or smart as Richard.

He helped my n'hood years ago in this manner. We were on the edge of two n'hood plan areas and being ignored. We have a main drag running through the 'hood that was in need of traffic calming and street trees.

We had no power, no money, and SDOT was out to shut us up and thwart us at every turn. Richard was the ONLY person on the council who took up our cause with us. He stuck with us for the next 2-3 years and FOLLOWED THROUGH on what he said he'd do. I can't say that for alot of elected officials.

Since then he's forged ahead in other areas with which I agree--bringing food into policy, insisting that sustainability be embedded in many city operations, and yes, still working to make streets safer and better for those not in a car.

When I catch Richard acting like Clarence Thomas--feet up on the desk, looking bored, and checking his nails, then I'll vote for someone else. Until then, Richard's my guy.