Dig deeper in coverage of mayor's race

Editor, The Times:

The all-too-predictable coverage of our candidates for mayor and primary opponents, Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan, by The Seattle Times and other media outlets is very disappointing.

The majority of the coverage ignores the specific ideas from each candidate and paints them as an environmentalist lawyer determined to stop the tunnel -- McGinn -- and a T-Mobile executive who wants to simply restore efficient government services -- Mallahan.
Neither depiction is false, but the coverage rarely digs deeper. Let me give it a try.

I know Mallahan, for example, wants to leverage funds to expand units for low-income families. I know he wants to eliminate the head tax for small businesses, reduce consultant contracts by 25 percent to yield tens of millions in savings for the city. He wants to expedite hiring of police officers to save millions more and help protect he city. I know he wants to fully reinstate and expand the gang unit, eliminate the Mercer Street Project and ensure wealthy developers bear more of the cost burden.

I know McGinn is interested in funding a private-public partnership to create Seattle High School scholarships; he wants to build a citywide fiber-optic network for Internet use; he wants to focus on Metro's plans for Rapid Ride lines and an electric-trolley bus system that potentially will improve traffic dramatically, and at a fraction of the cost of light rail.
How do I know this? Because I've participated at events for both McGinn and Mallahan, asked them questions personally, and I have actually taken the time to read their Web sites in depth, where their ideas are laid out. Have you?

Even The Times' own profiles of both candidates focus less on these ideas and issues and more on surface stuff like their personalities, families and background.

Let's dig deeper. I encourage The Times and all media outlets to really press McGinn and Mallahan on how they will achieve some of the ideas I've laid out above -- taken directly from their Web sites -- in order for the city to make the best, most-informed choice this November.

-- Paul West, Seattle

New mayor will need leadership, not government, experience

I am tired of hearing that the new mayor will spend the first six months looking for a coffee shop and the bathroom.

Your assumption that it takes "government experience" to lead is wrong ["Voters' message is clear: Show us something new," Opinion, editorial, Aug. 23]. It takes "leadership experience" to lead. Maybe we have a patriot stepping up to lead us.
I'm a disappointed voter, not a "cranky voter."

-- Thomas P. Wise, Seattle

Unions endorse, but do they know what they're doing?

All the big unions in Seattle endorsed the incumbent for mayor in the primary election. Mayor Greg Nickels lost and so did the unions. There is a good reason why Seattle politicians go after the union endorsement.

Seattle is one of the few cities left in the country with a union density higher than the national average.

Yet Seattle unions are sticking to the old dogs. Now that their favorite lost the primary, they are running around their halls trying to figure out whom to endorse now. Sticking to the old politicians only reinforces the negative perception most people have of unions: that they are corrupt, outdated and embedded in a romanticized past that barely resembles their present, much less their future.

This should be the question unions should ask of themselves: What about our future? Their future is not in endorsing politicians that play lip service to favoring unions. A politician who creates union jobs yet does nothing while the cost of living increases on those same workers, who does nothing as expensive condominiums replace less expensive apartments, who stands by as the homeless wither in our streets, is not a friend of working people and should not be a friend of the unions.

-- Russell B. Jacobs, Seattle

Message to Seattle pols: Don't mess with voters

The long-held view that Seattle voters simply refuse to get tough with their elective officials, no matter how much they dislike them or disagree with their policies, has finally been consigned to dustbin status.

Last week's primary results sent a resounding message to local officeholders -- voters do pay attention to your words and deeds, and if you screw up or ignore their wishes, there are electoral consequences.

Soon-to-be former Mayor Greg Nickels both screwed up (snowstorm response) and defied Seattle's wishes (waterfront tunnel). As a result, voters unceremoniously gave him the boot while humiliating his political clones, Jan Drago and Jordan Royer, in the process.

Now watch Seattle's political and economic establishment, which sorely wants the tunnel, close ranks behind the pro-tunnel candidate, Joe Mallahan. It is normal for the establishment-backed candidate for mayor to win handily like Paul Schell in 1997 and Nickels in 2005.

But Mike McGinn's first-place primary finish proves tunnel opposition still resonates among voters who had overwhelmingly rejected the tunnel option in their 2007 advisory vote.

Candidates who run against the will of Seattle's voters -- at long last -- will do so at their own peril.

-- Russell Scheidelman, Seattle

Bass an advocate for students, true public education

The Seattle Times' editorial, "Voters vet leaders for Seattle schools," [Opinion, Aug. 20] was yet another shot in the crusade of your editorial writers to privatize public education.

Mary Bass is doing what she was asked to do, such as advocate for students and families many people in our corporate never-never land want to test and standardize out of existence. Even if the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle has given up on Bass, many black folks in Seattle and elsewhere gave up on the Urban League back before Bass was even born. E. Franklin Frazier had their leadership style pegged more than half a century ago.

So Kay Smith-Blum can raise funds? Big deal. It's a criminal absurdity that public schools even have to fundraise in an era when the so-called private sector is busy selling us on the conviction that the public purse should be used to bail out banking thieves and military speculators.

And it is definitely a mark of the crisis in education, public or private, that such a shameless con game continues to drive the discussion connected to education reform or anything else in society.

-- Michael Hureaux, Seattle

Editorial does not speak for community that knows Bass best

Your assessment of Seattle School Board member Mary Bass was flawed, not based on fact and certainly does not speak for us in District 5.

Even if the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle wrote Bass off, that is not sufficient evidence for you to give such a negative report. What does The Seattle Times know about her?

Mary Bass has an impeccable record in the community she serves, and her accessibility to those she serves is a plus in any language. Everyone in every venue would appreciate the kind of hands-on availability she offers to hear the concerns and issues of the people.

We are more than faceless voices to her. Your attempt to malign such a capable person is overshadowed by the good she does on a daily basis. Her impact and accomplishments can be viewed on her Web site, www.marybass.com.

Bass will retain her seat on the School Board because the district needs her wisdom and commitment.

-- Naomi Donovan, Seattle

Nickels cut funding that was empowering Seattleites

Editor, The Times:

I was disappointed to read Danny Westneat ["Seattle likes debate, not action," NWSunday, column, Aug. 23] parroting the tired refrain of the Greg Nickels administration: You need to choose between engaging citizens and getting something done. History shows this is a false choice.

Norm Rice involved 3,000 citizens in his education summit, paving the way for the Families and Education Levy. He then empowered 30,000 citizens in a bottom-up neighborhood planning effort that, under the Paul Schell administration, resulted in voter-approved bond and levy measures for 27 new and improved libraries, 13 new and expanded community centers and 100 new and enhanced parks. Schell tripled the size of the Neighborhood Matching Fund, a program that has empowered tens of thousands of residents to implement more than 4,000 community self-help projects.

And what has the Nickels administration accomplished? As Tim Ceis says, "This isn't supposed to be a participatory democracy." So it killed the bottom-up planning program and made deep cuts to the Neighborhood Matching Fund. Nickels' administration opposed the successful citizen-initiated parks levy.

True, Nickels did get new fire stations along with huge cost overruns. He secured a new streetcar for Paul Allen while reducing bus service for existing riders. It took seven years to reach an agreement on the waterfront tunnel precisely because Nickels tried to impose his own solution; Nickels' failure to listen to the people may mean this project will never be built.

It is telling that the politician who focused on his own legacy being more than "footprints in the sand" left the rest of us stranded in the snow. I hope our next mayor will understand that Seattle's active citizens are its greatest strength.

-- Jim Diers, Vashon [Editor's note: Diers, former director of the Department of Neighborhoods, was fired by Nickels.]

A 'B' for snow, a 'B' for understanding what Seattle wants

Greg Nickels deserves a "B" grade for his understanding of and comments about the voters who favored other candidates in the primary.

-- Russ Baker, Federal Way

Nickels did more for Seattle than it knows

Mayor Greg Nickels has long done the right thing regardless of political expediency. He was one of the first elected leaders in the country to support President Obama, at a time when it was risky.

He led a national movement to stand up to the Bush administration on global warming. Out of fundamental decency, Seattle provided health benefits for domestic partners of city employees. He finally brought a viable public-transit system to our city. And our dangerous and blighted waterfront freeway will be replaced, reconnecting the people of Seattle on foot and bicycle with our tremendous God-given natural asset, our waterfront. Our city will be greener, more livable and even more beautiful.

The people in Seattle (or the few who voted in this primary) have spoken, and Nickels will not be the second Seattle mayor in history to be elected to a third term ["Nickels all but finished," page one, Aug. 21].

I have known Nickels for 14 years, and I can say this for sure: Whether you agree with him or not on issues (and yes, he is human just like the rest of us), Nickels' integrity, love for this city and leadership are unassailable.

I thank him for his service and will miss him as our mayor.

-- Manrita Sidhu, Seattle

Nickels couldn't manage the nuts and bolts

Danny Westneat ignores a major reason that Seattle voters decided to toss out Mayor Greg Nickels: nuts and bolts.

Certainly, some folks perceived Nickels as a strongman and wanted a return to process in decision making. But many others, including me, think he just didn't manage the city very well.

The 2008 snowstorm and its self-congratulatory "B" grade indicate Nickels was badly out of touch.

But I also think of the mayor when I get jarred by potholes, read about stupid actions by city departments, try to find a parking place I can afford, learn about yet another bureaucratic barrier to business, wonder why city employment levels and pay are not reigned in and ask myself why Seattle is more friendly to misbehaving drunks in Pioneer Square than to citizens who pay taxes and want to enjoy the place with their families.

Was Nickels too corporate? Hardly. He has worked his entire professional life in government. It's about time Seattle has a mayor who can manage the nuts and bolts of the city. I think someone with experience in the private sector has an excellent shot at doing a better job.

-- Phillip Johnson, Seattle

Forward-looking mayor paid the price for progress

Danny Westneat's column on why Seattle didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels was so great that I have decided to save it as a clipping, but unfortunately, as with some of his other fine columns, he came to the table too late.

Nickels has actually been a fine mayor for Seattle, and he deserves a lot more credit for what he has done than discredit over what he didn't do during two weeks in December.
It is possible to both love Seattle and to seek change when change is for the better -- such as gentrifying South Lake Union and adding streetcars and light-rail trains with their attendant transit-oriented development.

The current mayor had plenty of vision to look beyond repairing potholes, and he paid the price for it. As Westneat correctly said, what we will get for it is endless dithering for yet more time on the tunnel question.

As I have argued many times lately on the Seattle Transit Blog, all of this second-guessing elected leaders leads to an inefficient use of democracy as a weapon and risks being saddled with an electorate unwilling to trust and leaders unwilling to lead for fear of being closed down.

Nickels served as a punching bag in this election and got beaten by it unfairly in my view, showing flaws in a primary process that is more about ego than anything else.
I think a fine way to honor his leadership would be to let him retain a seat on the Sound Transit board so his voice can continue to be heard. I do not have any confidence that the two candidates in November have anywhere near the current mayor's breadth of leadership on transportation issues for Seattle.

Mike McGinn is a one-issue candidate who will plunge the city only to yet more turmoil over the tunnel-vs.-street-option replacement for the viaduct, and in the meantime, nothing will get done and prices will rise.

-- Tim Whittome, Issaquah

Nickels stood above the crowd

I didn't vote for Mayor Greg Nickels the first term, but he has brought home the bacon on transportation issues and does not deserve the eye-rolling commentaries and citizen complainers. Yes, I didn't like the snow either. Big deal.

Now one candidate for mayor seeks to undo half that critical progress of the last two terms and kill the Alaskan Way tunnel.

I think Danny Westneat's Aug. 23 column nailed it. Nitpick if you want, but Nickels turned out way above the crowd. He got something done. Unusual.

Now, are we going to revert to type and start "Doin' The Seattle"? Yuk!

Please don't, people.

-- Don Bell, Seattle

Low voter turnout the true disappointment of primaries

According to the most-recent election data, only 24 percent of registered Seattle voters bothered to vote in the primary election. How pathetic is that?

All of the constant whining one hears on the streets and on talk radio, in editorials in our local papers and blabbed in blogs represents only one quarter of the potential voting public.

Seattle residents should be ashamed of themselves for being so cavalier about this city's future and the issues that will make an enormous difference in the day-to-day lives of its citizens, such as the viaduct replacement and consumer taxes.

Unless you bothered to exert the extreme effort of mailing in your absentee ballot, please refrain from polluting our air with your complaints and opinions regarding the direction of this city -- one of the finest in the country, no thanks to you.

-- Brent Stavig, Seattle

Times editorial elitist and patronizing

The Seattle Times published an editorial headlined, "Partisans Move On" [Opinion, Aug. 19]. Since I live near Lynnwood, I have absolutely no dog in this hunt as it were. But after reading this rather pointed editorial, it appears the editorial board of The Times not only has its collective nose out of joint, but also must be at a right angle to its face.

I'm not sure whether the board believes the peasant masses of Seattle to be stupid or foolish or both. How dare Seattleites disregard the editorial board's collective wisdom and guidance and act on their own?

As I said earlier, I don't care who the folks in Seattle elect for dogcatcher much less mayor. However, I find the attitude of The Times editorial board to be both patronizing and elitist.

-- Phil Bate, Lynnwood

Seattle needs a mayor who can build that tunnel

There may be reason to be against the way the tunnel situation has played out, but the tunnel is the right answer, and it needs a mayor that knows how to do it properly.

-- Hugh Coleman, Kelso

Executive race was simply a popularity contest

Editor, The Times:

It's official: Most voters in King County are morons.

We know this because Susan Hutchison came in first in the primary for King County executive ["Former TV anchor to face off against council veteran," page one, Aug. 19].
Here's what most of her voters said to themselves: "Oh, I recognize her name and saw her on TV a lot. Therefore she should run our county government!"

Meanwhile, folks who are actually qualified got few votes by comparison. Pitiful.

-- Matthew J. Barry, Issaquah

In most candidates, a dearth of relevant experience

In the end, I voted. But only for two candidates and the referendum. Why?

Because nearly all of the candidates failed to provide evidence that they were qualified for the job. We know they love Seattle, King County, Washington, the USA., Mother Earth and the Universe.

But did any of the candidates have relevant experience? Apparently not -- otherwise, they would have said so, right? And why waste our time promising they'll solve our economic woes or fulfill any other absurd claims all by themselves? If elected, they'll work with others, negotiating and compromising, right? Isn't that what politics is all about in a democracy?

Since the candidates didn't provide qualifications, precious little relevant experience and nothing but empty promises, here's my suggestion for future voter pamphlets: Let a special election committee draft a blanket statement that covers all the things you have in common -- piety, patriotism, familial devotion and love of apple pie -- together with critiques of how badly it's going, overblown generalities about what candidates will accomplish and declarations that only candidates can save us from disaster.

That can go in the front of the pamphlet, where we can ignore it. Then tell us your actual qualifications.

-- Paul J. Smith, Seattle

With long-term tunnel vision, easy to see it's a poor choice

The Seattle Times' tunnel vision regarding the anti-tunnel vote is extremely shortsighted.
According to The Times' editorial, "A wounded mayor" [Opinion, Aug. 19]: "McGinn's solution, surface transportation, will jam our streets and overwhelm the freeway."

In addition to the short-term consequences of tunnel construction, the long-term global-warming consequences have been ignored. Hopefully our country will admit to the threat of global warming before it is too late for our children and grandchildren to correct the damage we have done.

If we decide to be responsible adults, the tunnel will be obsolete by the time it is finished or shortly thereafter. It is time we stop subsidizing single-occupant fossil-fueled traffic.

The money wasted on a tunnel would be better invested in a first-class bus-rapid-transit system.

-- Bob Jeffers-Schroder, Seattle

Avoiding political storm with mail-in ballots

I would like to thank King County for instituting mail voting and giving me back so much time. I voted the day my ballot arrived, and therefore could hang up on robo-calls, fast-forward through campaign commercials, skip reading all The Seattle Times stories about the candidates and the election and change the subject when friends brought up the election.

And of course, walking to the mailbox is much faster than driving to my old polling place and actually engaging in a communal event of civic engagement.

-- Silvia Ceravolo, Seattle

Automated campaign calls just too 'phony'

Automated phone calls to promote political candidates are doing just the opposite as far as this voter is concerned. It shows the candidate cares only about numbers, not individuals; has little if any initiative or imagination; has poor economic training; and possesses no sense in making more than one "robot call" while only multiplying the inconvenience.

In other words, such efforts are not only annoying and impersonal but "phony."

-- Bill Wippel, Normandy Park

An inconvenience, a lost vote

When will political candidates understand that for many of us, myself included, a phone call from a candidate's campaign immediately puts that office-seeker on the do-not-vote-for list?

We get all the info we need from personal observations and from newspapers, mailings, the Internet and attending forums. A phone call is just a rude irritation that interrupts what I am doing and that takes up my time to either hang up from or to delete from my voice mail. The only exception is when the candidate is on the line live.

I'm on the do-not-call list, and my phone number is unlisted and unpublished.

Unfortunately, politicians are allowed to disrespect this choice. Their choice to do that will cost them a lot of votes.

-- Carolyn Walden, Seattle

Why I'm voting against the measure

I am voting against the bag fee because I think it will lay more grief on our low-income neighbors. Quoting advocates of the bag fee, "That claim (that the fee will harm poor people) is utter rubbish. Much of the fee revenue will be used to provide free reusable bags to poor people, and anyone who uses reusable bags will pay no fees." ["Vote to eliminate disposable grocery bags," Kathy Fletcher and Denis Hayes, guest commentary, July 28].

In other words, the stresses of time and money that make this additional little task difficult and expensive for poor people will be no problem once they receive some free reusable bags.

When people don't have enough money, they work two or three jobs, walk to the bus, ride multiple buses each day, and, like others, buy groceries on the way home, raise children, deal with medical problems, and learn a new transportation system.

Punishing stressed people because they forgot a bag is heartless. Let's reject the bag fee and minimize plastic bags some other way.

-- Kate Anthony, Seattle

Nickels' tenure not all about mistakes

Editor, The Times:

Mayor Greg Nickels' challengers should be careful of exploiting his frank admissions ["Will vote signal a call for change?" page one, August 2] of having made "some mistakes" in his almost eight years in office, conveniently forgetting the many remarkable positive programs he spearheaded.

Community leaders must make a lot of tough decisions, often under great pressure. No matter how thoughtful and dedicated, even the best leaders are bound to make some mistakes. More important than making mistakes is whether we learned from them.

Nickels surely has done a lot of learning. Those aspiring to become our next mayor are well advised not to harp on the few mistakes made by him. It is easy for challengers to criticize the incumbent. Let them show us how they will do a better job.

-- Wolfgang Mack, Seattle

Nickels disregards safety, pushes personal initiatives

Is Seattle safer now than in 2002? Absolutely not. Since April, I am aware of at least eight break-ins in my Seward Park neighborhood -- two of them at my home and another at my son's home while my granddaughter occupied a bedroom.

Before 2002, I was not aware of any break-ins in Seward Park. The tragedy of the South Seattle woman killed by an intruder ["South Park anxious after fatal home break-in," NWThursday, July 23] underlines that Mayor Greg Nickels is not working to protect the citizens of Seattle.

I think the citizens of Seattle have had enough of Nickels' style of city management. Instead of supporting an adequate police force, he advocates projects to make Seattle green with more trees.

Instead of supporting increased police protection, he maintains an inept transportation manager on his staff. Instead of working for a safer Seattle, "his Honor" spends his time tying up traffic with his numerous bicycle trails for the use of bicyclists who disobey traffic laws and who gather illegally in mass to obstruct traffic with no legal consequences.

Nickels works only for his self-serving initiatives at the expense of initiatives to support the safety and well-being of Seattle citizens. Personally, I'm tired of paying millions for nickel management.

-- Ruben F. Owen, Seattle

McGinn's tunnel opposition is right on the money

Candidate Mike McGinn's opposition to the Seattle waterfront tunnel ["McGinn: 'He's the guy who's against the tunnel,'." page one, July 22] is right on the money and right on time. Let's not be taken in by another trendy marketing campaign.

We are all being railroaded into a plan that might well be the biggest marketing sham in recent Seattle history. First, the $4.2 billion price tag cannot be taken seriously; real costs will work out to be vastly greater, likely double or possibly even more.

Highly unstable subterranean soils are right in the tunnel's pathway, which is moreover immediately adjacent to tidal zones. Potential seismic activity like what damaged the existing viaduct -- raises risks even higher.

Second, that the tunnel idea is even on the table -- at the very time we are in unprecedented state budget and economic crisis -- speaks volumes about the utter indifference of 13 proponents to the real suffering many Seattle families are now enduring. And let's not forget the totality of state budgetary shortfall is not yet even known.

A vastly more sensible and less expensive approach is a replacement of the existing viaduct with a kinder, gentler greener design that nonetheless utilizes the existing footprint, as proposed by the Balanced Needs Concept.

McGinn is right as rain to put the Alaskan Way Viaduct issue as the central focus of his mayoral campaign.

-- Ross R. Atkinson, Mountlake Terrace

Carr has record of success, deserved endorsement

As a former Seattle police officer and detective, former chair of the city's Ethics and Elections Commission, current City Council member and chair of the Council's Public Safety Committee, I've had many firsthand experiences with Seattle city attorneys.

Tom Carr does an outstanding job as city attorney, ethically representing citizens and working diligently to protect taxpayers while finding humane and safe alternatives to incarceration. His innovative and highly effective approach to criminal justice slashed auto-theft rates by 60 percent, reduced jail bookings by 38 percent and made our neighborhoods safer.

Yet he knows we must do even more because he understands the critical importance of public safety. Carr's track record has earned him the highest rating from the Municipal League.

The Seattle Times overlooked Carr's overall job performance and experience in its endorsement of his opponent ["Pete Holmes for Seattle attorney," Opinion, editorial, August 3].

Regrettably, The Times allowed one issue to cloud its judgment, failing to recognize the complex and sophisticated nature of this critical position in city government. Tom Carr is the best candidate, and that's why the majority of my City Council colleagues have endorsed his re-election.

-- Tim Burgess, Seattle City Council member, Seattle

The Times endorses a candidate with no prosecuting experience

We at the Seattle Police Officer's Guild are concerned and disappointed to see The Times' endorsement of Pete Holmes for city attorney. Whether the Times editorial board likes it or not, experience as a prosecutor is critical, since about half of the position's activities have to do with criminal prosecution.

This sort of experience has a direct impact on public safety and our ability to protect the public from potentially dangerous members of society. Holmes has no experience as a prosecutor.

Only one of the candidates for city attorney has that experience, and that is who we endorse: The man who has been successfully filling this critical role in city government for the past eight years.

We endorse Tom Carr as city attorney.

-- Sgt. Rich O'Neill, Seattle Police Officer's Guild president, Seattle

Ellington's protection of children is not a first

Your endorsement of Judge Anne Ellington ["Re-elect Ellington to state appeals court," Opinion, editorial, August 3] praising her opinion that children in initial truancy proceedings are entitled to an attorney mistakenly said, "No other state offers such a right."

In fact, the right to counsel for children in truancy proceedings is not a novel or unique idea. For example, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Alabama and Nevada address truancy in Child in Need of Services, or CHINS, proceedings in which children are entitled to counsel.

Minnesota handles truancy as a CHINS matter, and the court must appoint a public defender before any out-of-home placement can be ordered. Wisconsin has a similar rule.

Arizona addresses truancy in its incorrigibility statute, and children have a right to counsel.

Oregon does not lock up children for truancy, although a parent may be cited if a child does not attend school.

Washington is in the unusual position of incarcerating children for not going to school, allowing prosecution of a child for truancy followed by a contempt proceeding. What the Court of Appeals did, with two other judges joining the unanimous opinion written by Ellington, was to recognize the due process right to a lawyer to protect children in hearings that affect their constitutional rights to liberty, privacy and education.

-- Robert C. Boruchowitz, Seattle

Common sense needed in school closures

I am the candidate not mentioned in the endorsement article ["For Seattle School Board," Opinion, editorial, August 3] regarding the School Board race in District 5, and it is time I speak for myself.

Some dismiss me as just being against school closures, but the work of the group for reopening TT Minor Elementary School includes a vision for an International School Program supported by many in the area. The TT Minor reference area -- not large or gerrymandered -- has the highest birth rate of any reference area in the Central Area cluster, and the fastest-growing number of children under the age of 5 of any reference area in the entire Seattle School District.

Therefore, if we really want neighborhood schools that are embraced by parents, the community must be included in deciding what type of program in places like TT Minor would make sense.

Unless all communities are empowered to advocate for their schools and programs, wonderful neighborhood school choices will be realized for some neighborhoods and not for others. I believe all the candidates, especially the challengers, have ambitious ideas for our schools.

The difference is that I will insist on your help to hold all the elected officials responsible for ensuring the Central District and all neighborhoods are proud of their schools and programs.

I will insist that parents and communities are included in the process of designing the programs and schools that all neighborhoods deserve. School assignments must make sense. We have to come together for the sake of our children, our families and our communities.

My candidacy is about all communities being treated fairly and equitably. Common sense can be applied to data.

-- Joanna Cullen, Seattle

Green candidates sure send lots of campaign mail

With the primary election in full swing, we in Seattle once more are getting bombarded with candidates' green credentials -- written on mounds of literature mailed to us and placed on our doorsteps. See any contradiction?

Yes, campaign literature is integral to our electoral process, but can't we get a little smarter about it? Making the literature smaller -- I like postcard size -- and more recyclable come to mind as a start.

Or perhaps just put it all on a Kindle?

-- Beverly Marcus, Seattle

Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times

Gov. Christine Gregoire conducts a news conference at the Seattle Westin Hotel Wednesday to talk about her plans for Washington state.

Seattleites' wallets must be bulging

Editor, The Times:

So, Gov. Christine Gregoire is still the governor and yet another Sound Transit proposal has been approved. Apparently, the good people of this state love forking over their hard-earned dollars in taxes while getting absolutely nothing of value in return.

If only I still had the Seahawks to get excited about. What a year.

-- Ted Hastings, Bellevue

Disappointment in both Washingtons

Well, the die is cast. We're in for at least two years of one-party rule in the federal government, and I'd bet my next paycheck that -- despite President-elect Barack Obama's campaign promises of moderation -- the Democrat majorities as represented by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will overestimate the "mandate" they think they have from the voters.

They will overreach to pass their radical agenda, and wind up alienating the American people, just as they did in 1992 and 1993. We'll have to reverse course and throw at least some of the bums out in 2010 to restore some semblance of equilibrium.

One-party rule, no matter which party, is never good. It's worse when the party in power is led by vindictive, intolerant extremists motivated by partisan revenge rather than the good of the citizens they're supposed to serve.

Here in Washington, we're in for four more years of ever-increasing taxes, irresponsible spending and incompetent leadership under Gov. Christine Gregoire. Not everyone in the Seattle area is elated at that prospect, but it appears that's what the majority of people of the Puget Sound region want -- a government that takes our money, fails to live up to its promises and then comes back demanding more of our hard-earned dollars.

As long as our city, county and state leaders see that the people they purport to represent are stupid enough to keep voting for them, there's certainly no reason for them to change their ways.

I used to be proud to call Washington state home. No longer. Now, after living here for 58 years, I can hardly wait for the day I can leave.

-- Winston Rockwell, Kirkland

No new taxes?

As a gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi supporter in 2004 and 2008, I am frustrated by what I feel is duplicity from Gov. Christine Gregoire regarding her promises not to raise taxes ["Rossi concedes defeat to Gregoire," Politics & Government, Nov. 5].

In 2004, when repeatedly pressed by Dave Ross on his show for KIRO-AM, Gregoire finally quit dodging the question and promised that there would be no new taxes if she were elected. Of course, we now know that Washington state has seen record tax increases under Gregoire's watch.

Now, in 2008, I note in your article that "both candidates pledged they would not increase taxes or fees to balance the budget next year if elected." Will The Seattle Times pay particular attention to Gregoire's budget this year to see if this in fact holds true?

To this day, Former President George Herbert Walker Bush is haunted by his "read my lips: no new taxes" blunder. Bush said one thing and then did another. He deserves the criticism now.

Gregoire copied a page from Bush's playbook in 2004 and now appears to be planning for an encore in 2008.

-- Andrew Schneidler, Sammamish

Light-rail expansion is the right path
As a Seattleite, I often pride myself on being in an area where voters take a deep look at the issues or candidates and make the intelligent choices.

It's great that Sound Transit Proposition 1 has received so much coverage this year but I'm afraid we can't see the forest for the trees ["Bus vs. Light Rail," Times, page one, Oct. 29].

The debate has become bogged down by numbers from both proponents and opponents of Prop 1: $17.9 billion vs. $107 billion; 1 million riders per day vs. 1 percent of daily trips; transit relief in 2 years or 15 years.

Instead of voting based on misleading numbers, I hope voters will choose between the competing visions for the transportation future of Seattle.

I strongly believe the integrated and diverse-transit network promised by Proposition 1 would lead Seattle down the right path. It's a path where commuters have real transportation options. A path where the most heavily traveled transportation corridors will be served by high capacity and efficient light rail. A path that will address congestion, the increasing cost of energy, population growth, over-dependence on fossil fuels, global warming emissions and unseen challenges over the horizon.

Choose your vision, and vote for it on Nov. 4.
-- Alison Graham, Seattle

Follow the leaders
I recently spent almost a week in Portland and took their Max light rail every day. It's a great system and It's packed with riders. It's has spurred intelligent development all along its route.

Vancouver's Sky Train zips you along its line and major buses run so frequently that you don't need to even carry a schedule. Every major European city has major-rail transit, and lots of the smaller systems.

Here we are in Seattle, voting down initiative after initiative to catch up with other major cities to and actually build some decent public transit.

Sound Transit Proposition 1 may not be perfect, but it gets buses on the ground now, and builds or extends light rail along our key regional corridors, so other forms of transportation can plug into them.

There's a reason it's supported by every major environmental groupI hope we'll finally take the chance to build the core transit spine that will knit our region together, let us use our ever-more-expensive private cars far less (or in many areas and for many people not at all), and let us deal with the overriding threat of global climate change.

-- Paul Loeb, Seattle

Get on with it
Contrary to your story, I do not regard an expanded-bus system as an alternative to light rail.

No matter how many additional buses are put on, I would not ride the bus, except in a dire emergency. Buses are inconvenient and they clog traffic.

As someone who has lived in cities with light rail systems both here and abroad, I appreciate their convenience and speed and how they free the rider from traffic congestion.

I have long hoped Seattle would at last muster the political will to build a light rail system.

-- Jon Lehman, Seattle

Continue the growth with the parks levy

On Oct. 27, a ceremony celebrated the accomplishments of the 1968 Forward Thrust bond issue and announced the new name for Freeway Park as "Jim Ellis Freeway Park."

Forward Thrust was described as setting "the stage for Seattle to become one of the premiere cities on the west coast and to win awards such as most-livable city."

In more recent years, voters approved measures such as the 1989 open space and trails bond that preserved more than 600 acres of green space in Seattle, and the 2000 pro-parks levy that funded park acquisition and development projects in nearly every neighborhood in Seattle.

Seattle Proposition 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot, the parks and green spaces levy, will continue this legacy. If approved, the levy will provide funds to preserve key properties in Seattle's green spaces and to create and improve parks in our most densely-developed neighborhoods.

As our city continues to grow, we need to ensure that it grows intelligently and ecologically, and remains a place we are happy to call home.

Like Forward Thrust, the Seattle parks-and-green-spaces levy will help ensure that Seattle remains a livable city.

--Catherine Anstett, Seattle

We're pushing out the little people
A plea to my fellow Seattleites: Citizens, before we do what we've done countless times before and vote for every tax hike presented to us, I beg you to stop and consider the ultimate consequence of this seemingly knee-jerk choice. That is, the end of Seattle being a livable city for anyone but the rich elite.

How so? All of the apparently small and allegedly justified taxes, whether they be minor increments in the sales tax, property tax "lid lifts" or even specific taxes on hotel rooms, car rentals and restaurant meals, mound up year after year. Taken together they are eating away at the standard of living of the everyday, hardworking Seattle resident -- that is, you, me and probably most folks you know.

Even if we don't pay a given tax directly, we're still paying them in the form of higher rents or increased prices for just about everything. Every store you shop at that incurs those new taxes (which would be every store within the city limits) will pass them on to you in the form of higher prices.

It's an all but perennial chant among political candidates to maintain Seattle as a place for working families, but despite the populist appeal of the phrase, little is actually done.

Most if not all of those same candidates, after having entered office, propose these nickel-and-dime tax increases that by small but definite degrees erode the income of our "working families" while providing little if any real benefit.

They all talk a good game about improving the Pike Place Market, expanding and improving parkland or increasing mass transit, but what good is any of it if you can't afford a sudden hike in your rent or increase in food prices?

Given embarrassing failures like the automated public bathroom debacle, do you really think government officials will be any more careful with our tax dollars in the future, especially since we've previously been so enthusiastic to give them up? And in our current economic travails, asking to have yet more money taken out of our hands and put into government-run projects (or even more reckless para-governmental authorities like Sound Transit) seems masochistic at best.

So please, fellow Seattleites, steel yourselves and turn a deaf ear to the pleadings of those who, despite their expressed good intentions, would in sad fact make our city a less livable one for those who can least afford it: you and me.

Vote "no" on all of the myriad tax proposals Tuesday. What good is a "world-class" city if only the upper class can enjoy it?

-- Frederic Riebs, Seattle

You don't know me
Driving north of downtown Seattle made me wonder what those people with political bumper stickers, those people with signs in their yards and those standing on the street waving political signs must think of me.

They are advising me, a complete stranger, to vote the way they are planning to vote. Why in the world would any sane person make a decision to vote the way those strangers are going to vote, just because they advertise on their car, lawn or on a picket-like sign?

One does not know how responsible they are, nor is it it is known what their educational background is for them to be qualified to make the choices being recommended.

In addition, it is not known how thoroughly they researched the opposing candidates' positions, nor what their motives are for voting the way they plan to vote.

Despite all of that, they want a person to trust their judgment and vote as they will vote. They are insulting a person's intelligence.

-- Thomas Markley, Bellevue

Ellen Banner / The Seattle Times

Sound Transit link light-rail trains sit on the tracks that run down Martin Luther King Jr. Way South between South Henderson Street and the South Boeing Access Road, as a Metro bus drives northbound on MLK.

Look to Brazil

Editor, The Times:

Pitting light rail against buses, as in Mike Lindblom's story, is a false choice ["Bus vs. Light Rail, Which One is Your Ticket to Ride?," Times, page one, Oct. 29].

I know. I've taken a ride on the world's most renowned bus-rapid-transit system, in Curitiba, Brazil.
What makes the Curitiba BRT system so effective? It is designed, built and operated almost like light rail. And if we were to do the same thing here, it would cost in the same ballpark to build.

The Curitiba BRT operates mostly on dedicated bus lanes, well separated from other traffic, with fancy "tube" stations. To do this cheaply here, you'd have to take all the bus lanes away from existing vehicles and go head-to-head with Tim Eyman and legions of irate drivers caught in massive traffic jams.

So we're better off with light rail where ridership is high, or where it will be high when a corridor is fully developed. We need to finance more buses where they are most effective: on secondary corridors as pseudo-BRT (mostly without dedicated lanes), as feeders to light-rail stations or for other local or suburban service.

-- Dick Burkhart, Seattle

Good for the economy

My name is Nathan Olson and I am a 19-year-old Everett Community College student who strongly supports Proposition 1 [light-rail expansion] ["Bus vs. Light Rail, Which One is Your Ticket to Ride?," page one, Oct. 29]. I believe this measure is critical to our way of life in the Puget Sound region and it will create much-needed jobs, promote choices of commuting and, most important, help our environment.

-- Nathan Olson, Everett

The right direction

What's rectangular, stretches 55 miles, can carry 1 million riders a day, and is white and blue? The upcoming light rail.

It is the alternative to rising gas prices and greenhouse-gas emissions, which pollute our world now.
The light rail can decrease traffic, provide a smoother ride than buses, can carry more people than buses and provide fewer delays.

The bus system is slower, not as comfortable and gets caught in traffic delays. Its diesel fuel pollutes and the cost of fuel is volatile.

The light rail will reach Lynnwood, north Federal Way and the Overlake Transit Center.

The light rail will cost more than $300 million a mile but it will be worth it. I think it is good to try something new; in the end it might be a very good investment.

All the major cities in Europe have light rail or subway systems and have proven very effective at moving people and reducing traffic congestion. We need to take care of the Earth; it is our responsibility. The light rail is moving in the right direction.

--Nicole Espe, Edmonds

Let's get it started

I sincerely hope we can continue to build and expand the light-rail system. For more than 30 years light rail has been held up by entrenched ignorance, inertia and obstructionism. Meanwhile traffic is getting worse.

We have just returned from Europe where we traveled extensively on the Berlin U-Bahn and S-Bahn. This system covers both inside and outside the city. The trains are quick, frequent and convenient.

We used the Vienna, Budapest and Prague systems as well. In previous years we have ridden on the excellent Barcelona system and the London tube and Paris Metro.

In March I was in New Delhi, where I saw the large construction project for their system, too.

So, wake up Seattle, King County and adjoining areas and lets get our system going as well.
We need it.

-- Michael Clarke, Redmond

We'll die in our diesel
Living in a region that has generally clean hydro-produced energy, it seems most logical to make any transportation system that does not use imported fossil fuels a priority.

I vote for trains, streetcars and expanding the electric-trolley system. If not, our economy could die in its diesel.

-- David Clifton, Seattle

Some of us still drive

The story by Mike Lindblom, "Bus vs Light Rail," left out the one thing all the planners seem to never want to consider: Where do we park our cars?

This should really be a consideration on the Eastside. I have very good service getting downtown on the bus from Redmond, but with light rail? In metropolitan Seattle? Are we serious?

-- Reed Hunt, Woodinville