McGinn: "Big business has set city agenda for too long"

Chris Grygiel (Strange Bedfellows):

Is Mike McGinn an inflexible ideologue who threatens business and progress in Seattle or a populist who will listen to the people instead of the entrenched Jet City power structure?

McGinn

That's a question voters will answer in November when McGinn, the attorney and former Sierra Club leader, takes on T-Mobile executive Joe Mallahan in the November mayoral election. McGinn and Mallahan ousted two-term incumbent Greg Nickels in the Aug. 18 primary. Nickels' business and labor supporters now back Mallahan. Like Mallahan, they believe McGinn's opposition to a tunnel replacement for the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct is unrealistic and threatens to derail an agreement that took eight years to reach. McGinn says the $4.2 billion project is too expensive, too car-centric and unfairly saddles Seattle with cost overruns.

McGinn spoke to Seattlepi.com this week at a downtown coffee shop (Seattlepi.com will be interviewing Mallahan next week). McGinn discussed the viaduct, why big business and big labor fear him, what he'd like to accomplish if elected and his Ultimate Frisbee skills. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.

Obviously the viaduct is a big issue in your campaign. Mr. Mallahan favors the tunnel option, you don't. You want to get people out of their cars, but most studies show your surface option would substantially increase the number of vehicles downtown, making it unfriendly for people walking or riding bikes. How do you square that with your desire to get people out of cars.

The I-5/transit option will do more to give people options. Even beyond that I've also committed to putting a plan in front of voters to extend light rail in Seattle to the neighborhoods on the west side that aren't being served by light rail, like West Seattle, Ballard, lower Queen Anne, Belltown. We can do that using our rights of way - we can do it less expensively, and we can do it with Seattle voters and Seattle resources so we don't have to wait for Sound Transit to get to Sound Transit 3. Mr. Mallahan opposes that. So I'm putting a vision in front of the city about how we transition, not just in how we replace the tunnel, but how we start investing in more transit overall, which I think will do a lot more for this city than putting our resources in a tunnel.

And also with the tunnel, it doesn't have any entrances or exits downtown, and what that means is that people going downtown, or people who don't want to pay the toll, are going to use surface streets and I-5. Under Mr. Mallahan's plan we won't be making any improvements to surface streets or transit or I-5. So, I think the vision I'm putting forth is a vision that's going to give people choices and give us a transportation system we need for the future.

Would you ask voters whether they would want a surface option? You talk about the vote a few years ago in which people rejected the tunnel and the rebuild option. Would you go to voters and say, 'Here's my plan, what do you think?'

If we're spending substantial sums of money, we're probably going to have to go to the voters for it. I would like to make that plan fit within the resources from the state. Voters have already approved, in statewide referendums, the 9.5 gas tax which has over $2 billion for the City of Seattle. So voters have already approved a viaduct replacement. If we needed substantial sums from city resources, we may have to take that to the voters, but if we can do that within the resources from the state, we should.

If the state says, 'OK, you're not doing the tunnel, we're taking that money away.' What do you do?

I think that would be a short sighted decision by the state. First of all, they'd be ignoring the will of the voters when they approved the 9.5 cent gas tax. Secondly, they'd be ignoring the fact that Seattle is an economic engine and we need to take down that unsafe viaduct and we need to invest in a good transportation system for the City of Seattle. And I expect, their threats not withstanding, that the Seattle legislative delegation and whoever the mayor is would work with the state Legislature to make sure that the state takes care of the state highway problem.

You talk about the Legislature. One of the complaints about Mayor Nickels was that he was hard to work with. People in Olympia said he would go down there, and they felt he went with a 'my way or the highway' attitude. Your background is with the Sierra Club, which is known in Olympia for throwing some sharp elbows. When you guys opposed the roads/transit initiative in favor of a transit-only option people felt you were inflexible. Why would you be different than Nickels?

You're making a whole set of assumptions about how the Sierra Club does business. First of all, we did bring light rail back alone. And that's what the voters wanted. That passed overwhelmingly and the roads and transit ballot measure failed. If you want to get things done, having public support is the best way. I think that's basically a problem here with the tunnel situation. They are trying to do something that does not genuinely have public support.

So, I'd also point out in my background, forming a non-profit, Great City, included supporters who were on the other side of me in the roads and transit measure. So I've demonstrated the ability to build coalitions and make alliances - agree on one issue and disagree on another. I think the main issue with any of these things is we have to focus on outcomes the serve the long-term needs of the people. If you do that, disagreement is fine. Just so long as everybody is prepared to come back and keep working on the problems.

Four years seems like a long time, but necessarily mayors focus on a few things. Outside of the viaduct where would you want to dedicate your energy?

Certainly, improving local transit. Again, we've made a commitment to put a plan in front of Seattle voters to extend light rail. Working on bringing city resources to bear and the influence of the mayor in supporting education would be another high priority. And, I think the third one is we have to figure out how we can invest in people. In a time of fewer dollars, we're going to have to figure out how we use our resources to create jobs locally and seek federal stimulus money to create local jobs as well as work with the groups and individuals in communities that want to work on addressing the needs of people in communities.

So you can see that in my immigrant and refugee policy I put forward, the neighborhood planning policy I put forward, the public safety policy I put forward. All of these policies are really trying to engage the community.

The business and labor crowd has backed Mr. Mallahan because they are frightened by your stance on issues like the viaduct tunnel. What do you say to them?

I do have a record of working with business and with labor on issues. In my neighborhood, we did planning that involved business. Great City involved business. In the Sierra Club I partnered with labor on issues of worker safety and health and reducing air pollution at the port and protecting industrial lands. There is a record they can see of collaborating.

The issue here, though, is big business, the Chamber (of Commerce) and the big construction unions really want that tunnel. And Joe Mallahan is their man. I've come into this race, I haven't needed their support to win the primary. If we build a campaign based on people and ideas and win I think that's a different type of politics in Seattle and that concerns them. They've set the agenda for a long time and they want to keep setting the agenda and I'm suggesting we need to take some different approaches to build for the future.

Aside from the viaduct, what's the biggest difference between you and Mr. Mallahan?

I mentioned one, he doesn't think we should get light rail as soon as possible and extend it in the city. I think that's a big difference, and I think it's a difference that reflects a different vision of what our city can be. It's not just a difference on transportation choices, it's a difference on really building a city that responds to the economic and environmental challenges we face for tomorrow. I have a long record of working toward that vision. I think those are the significant differences between me and Mr. Mallahan. And being dedicated to an agenda of change, because that's what we need. We're not going to face these challenges that we have by a continuation of the policies of the past. And Mr. Mallahan is now finding himself tied to a continuation of those policies and I'm seeking a bolder approach to addressing those problems.

What did you think of Mayor Nickels proposal to ban guns in places were children go?

I support what he's trying to do. I suppose, there may be legal challenges to that, and I think the city should work to demonstrate it's appropriate to ban guns from parks and public facilities.

People sense that you're a pretty serious, strident guy. What do you do for fun?

I know. I remind myself to smile more when I'm on stage. But it's hard. These are serious issues and running for mayor is a pretty serious endeavor. You know, my kids are a joy. Just hanging out with them, playing basketball with them, playing board games, playing Ultimate Frisbee with them is a blast.

I've coached their basketball teams and was even recruited to coach the Ultimate Frisbee team, on an as needed basis. I was gratified to hear the other kids wanted me around because they thought I was a good coach. I'm very positive out there on the field. I just want people to play hard and think about how to be a team and do their best. I love music. Usually when I'm in the house, there's music playing, and that's good. I get out and get to play basketball. There's a Sunday morning game that I don't make as much as I'd like to, which is a good, hard game at Ballard Boys and Girls club.

And probably the other thing that's fun, and this is what I find on the campaign trail, is the camaraderie of the team. We've got a really fun group of people working. We have a lot of laughs when we're working together. And I love having groups of people over to my house, and cooking for them and just having a good time. I'm fortunate, I've got a lot of good friends from my work, from going to law school, from my work in the neighborhood, from my work in the Sierra Club.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.