Today brings the first State of the City address. I could have gone downtown and watched live, but that just sounds awful. Plus, Lili would be horribly bored. So, I'm watching from home. I wonder what he's going to say...shhhh...pay attention, Michael!!!
I'm going to eat some Lucky Charms while I watch.
One of the first topics that the mayor touched on was crime, specifically violent crime amongst our youth. I appreciate that he tied this in to the broader issues of class and socio-economic deficiencies in our city. That being said - I think we all know that something needs to be done. Mr. Mayor - what are you going to do?
After a bit of rambling about growing up on the East Coast, our economy not having a foundation in chain stores, and how idealism is a good thing (so pragmatism is a bad thing?), he got to the meat. The "big challenges" facing our city.
First things first, there is the budget. Mr. McGinn and I think just about everyone are in agreement. This is the most important thing that is facing the city and the Mayor's office. Without really getting into specifics, he gives on the GOP/Ben Nelson line of "reduc[ing] expenses", doing more with fewer people, and after laying off as many people as possible, maybe considering revenue increases (taxes).
It will be interesting to hear details. To hear what Mr. McGinn thinks are the programs that are too fat and bloated, and that we can either do without, or do with less people.
This is especially prevalent when you look at the second big challenge he mentions, not supporting the youth of this city "the way we should". Yes, there is an achievement gap. Yes, youth violence is on the rise. And apparently unemployment amongst youth is a major issue (define youth...I think of youth as under 18, and didn't realize we really tracked unemployment of teenagers under 18).
His response to the issue is holding town halls, reaching out to community members, educators, executives, etc, ask them what needs to be done, and do it. I agree that this is an issue that is extraordinarily complex. I understand that the mayor has no direct understanding, having spent 10 years as a corporate lawyer, doing well enough to start his own little non-profit funded by Vulcan. Are his children in public schools? So yes, there will be some major learning that will be necessary. But what I want to know - while you're out there getting all of this input, Mr. Mayor, what are you going to do? Are you going to work with the library system to help shore up a system that is bleeding employees and cutting hours? Are you going to work to expand the child-care assistance the City provides, to cover more families that qualify? Perhaps that program will only work with certain after-school childcare programs that basically extend the school day. And more police kiosks in high-crime areas. What are you going to do while you try to get input on what to do?
I think we are all in agreement that infrastructure is in dire need of help in this city. Potholes, lack of transportation alternatives, water and sewer, the power grid, fiber optics, stormwater runoff. It's good to hear that Mr. McGinn has the intention of looking at these problems, and tackling them head on. Admitting that they are expensive, and need to be done, is a great step, and I hope he means it. Fixing deteriorating infrastructure creates jobs now, and keeps our city wonderful for years to come.
Which leads to the bike and pedestrian plans. Yes, these are necessary, and great plans. Yes, they are underfunded. I am still waiting to hear how the Mayor's office plans to fund them, and when to expect that commitment to begin. Additionally, helping the county find more money for Metro sounds good, but tell me what that looks like. I think it would be more in the interest of the City to work with the County to have more control over what routes look like. And to really pressure Metro to get rid of the 40-40-20 plan, which, ultimately, hurts our great city.
Mr. McGinn has put a line in the sand...sort of...on the 520 replacement. But I want to know how he thinks that we can pay to put light rail across 520 when we still are working on getting it across I-90. Perhaps this is a bargaining ploy to have two lanes dedicated to bus rapid transit?
And the Big Dig can, in no way, be compared to what we're doing to replace the Viaduct. But, it seems he's finally letting go of the pipe dream that this won't be built, either as four lanes in a tunnel, or six lanes in a new viaduct.
And he knows there will be cost overruns. We have a psychic for a mayor!!!
His appeal for more deregulation I have mixed feelings about. While on the one hand, I totally agree with the park and ride lots, and facing reality to allow for some short term relaxation of rules to help keep the local economy from spiraling out of control, I would hope that he wouldn't be pushing for allowing long-term projects that go around the rules in order to allow for short term economic gains.
Overall, Mr. McGinn seems to understand the state of the city. While I didn't hear any big plans, or much in the way of plans at all (other than town halls for youth and family services), I confess that I am glad he didn't put forth any major plans at this stage. So far those haven't turned out so well, and perhaps he has realized his political mistakes.
And why is it that Bruce Harrell has to stand to talk?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
McGinn and Tim Eyman
I despise the initiative process. It's not that I don't believe the People should have a say in the drafting of laws or governance, I just think that history shows we're not that great at it.
Take for instance the 2000 elections. I always love using this as my example, because it shows how awful legislating by initiative is.
In 2000, Initiatives 728 and 732 were passed with overwhelming support statewide. These mandated a reduction in class sizes, and increases in teacher pay. Wonderful things to strive for, to be sure, but not one inkling of a way to pay for these lofty goals.
Instead, voters also passed Initiative 722, with over 55% of the vote. 722 is the initiative that limited property tax increases to 2% (from the previous limit of 6%).
See - voters legislating is not the best thing in the world.
Of course, there is only one person who would have proposed I-722, that being Tim Eyman. Mr. Eyman has this thing where he seems to believe that the only way to legislate is via initiative. He is a true believe in governing by the people, even if the people don't totally understand what they're doing. This is the man who fought when the State passed legislation that created a section in voter's pamphlets to include a "fiscal impact statement." He does not want you to know what will happen when you pass a tax cut. All around, he's not that great of a guy.
The unfortunate thing is that Seattle's new mayor, Mike McGinn, seems to also believe in governing by the people. He is unabashedly using polls to determine what he should focus on as Mayor, along with an internet survey (with the top three being more light rail (good), legalizing and taxing pot (which can't be done by the city), and more nude beaches (priorities?)), and countless town hall meetings.
I hope that this is just a learning curve issue. The fact is that we elect people to govern. We pay taxes that pay their salaries, and the salaries of their staff, to govern. Yes, governing requires getting input from communities that are affected by specific proposals, but every single thing that is done does not require a poll, or a town hall, or an internet survey. Every thing that you want to do does not require a special election ballot.
Instead, focus on governing. Determine what you want to do for the city, and allow input, sure. Listen to the input. But for the big, grand ideas, YOU have been elected, so do some leadership. We cannot have a system of all Indians, no Chiefs. It doesn't work. When a department is planning something that will impact a specific neighborhood, ensure that they are taking in input via community meetings, and that should cut it.
I fear McGinn is becoming Tim Eyman, and wanting to have everything decided by popular vote, be that via an actual ballot, or town halls, or polls, or internet surveys. And Seattle sure as shit does not need Tim Eyman running the show.
If the administration does get out of control, then City Council - it's up to you. And I hope you're prepared for the task.
Take for instance the 2000 elections. I always love using this as my example, because it shows how awful legislating by initiative is.
In 2000, Initiatives 728 and 732 were passed with overwhelming support statewide. These mandated a reduction in class sizes, and increases in teacher pay. Wonderful things to strive for, to be sure, but not one inkling of a way to pay for these lofty goals.
Instead, voters also passed Initiative 722, with over 55% of the vote. 722 is the initiative that limited property tax increases to 2% (from the previous limit of 6%).
See - voters legislating is not the best thing in the world.
Of course, there is only one person who would have proposed I-722, that being Tim Eyman. Mr. Eyman has this thing where he seems to believe that the only way to legislate is via initiative. He is a true believe in governing by the people, even if the people don't totally understand what they're doing. This is the man who fought when the State passed legislation that created a section in voter's pamphlets to include a "fiscal impact statement." He does not want you to know what will happen when you pass a tax cut. All around, he's not that great of a guy.
The unfortunate thing is that Seattle's new mayor, Mike McGinn, seems to also believe in governing by the people. He is unabashedly using polls to determine what he should focus on as Mayor, along with an internet survey (with the top three being more light rail (good), legalizing and taxing pot (which can't be done by the city), and more nude beaches (priorities?)), and countless town hall meetings.
I hope that this is just a learning curve issue. The fact is that we elect people to govern. We pay taxes that pay their salaries, and the salaries of their staff, to govern. Yes, governing requires getting input from communities that are affected by specific proposals, but every single thing that is done does not require a poll, or a town hall, or an internet survey. Every thing that you want to do does not require a special election ballot.
Instead, focus on governing. Determine what you want to do for the city, and allow input, sure. Listen to the input. But for the big, grand ideas, YOU have been elected, so do some leadership. We cannot have a system of all Indians, no Chiefs. It doesn't work. When a department is planning something that will impact a specific neighborhood, ensure that they are taking in input via community meetings, and that should cut it.
I fear McGinn is becoming Tim Eyman, and wanting to have everything decided by popular vote, be that via an actual ballot, or town halls, or polls, or internet surveys. And Seattle sure as shit does not need Tim Eyman running the show.
If the administration does get out of control, then City Council - it's up to you. And I hope you're prepared for the task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
