As we’ve stated in previous discussion, we sent an invitation to Council member Phillips to join us in collaboration for a community debate. We feel this would provide the residents of District 4 an opportunity to see both candidates Pottharst and Phillips in a discussion of the issues--to give voters the best possible information as they seek to select the Council representative for the next two years.
This past Friday, a message came from the Phillips campaign indicating no interest in bringing a mutually agreed-upon event to the voters. In a letter dated 10/28 (Day 17), Phillips’ campaign manager, Travis Commodore, draws several presumptuous and incorrect conclusions.
First, Commodore dismisses the idea of a debate, stating, “It is disappointing that most public forums are poorly attended…” and, “adding another low-attendance event—I believe—is not as effective as meeting with face to face with voters on front steps and porches every night.” In Mr. Commodore’s defense, we also believe in the value of doorbelling. Ed has canvassed thousands of homes over the last several months. However, we also believe that any solid campaign delivers its message to the voter in a variety of ways. It is mistake to write off what is normally considered an integral, important part of the political process. In doing so, Mr. Commodore, on behalf of Coucilmember Phillips, has decided for the voter that this is not a worthwhile pursuit, and is in effect writing off voters who find value in such forums.
Second, Commodore declines a forum stating there are only minor differences between the candidates. He then launches into an incorrect attack on Ed, citing what he labels Ed’s support for a now-moot-point move by Southwest Airlines to Boeing Field in a Seattle Times editorial board interview. Although Ed has consistently stated that it is important to look at the issues raised by the SWA proposal, or that the move might have worked under specific conditions, that remains far away from expressing support.
The SWA proposal raises the larger issue of Puget Sound regional transportation planning and both King County’s and the Port of Seattle’s roles. Better coordination among Puget Sound government and transportation agencies will help the region come to consensus on how best to serve growing air passenger traffic, including rapid or mass transit links to any other regional airports that are developed. Rather than going it alone separately, both King County and the Port of Seattle need to work with the Puget Sound Regional Council and other Puget Sound cities, counties, and ports on a collaborative approach to regional air service.
The SWA proposal also raises the larger issue of airplane noise over the Puget Sound region. Councilmember Phillips has been diligent over the years in trying to get the FAA to shift a Boeing Field flight path away from over parts of Magnolia out more over Elliott Bay. However, community groups in West Seattle and nearby areas have said that such a shift would spill aircraft noise onto their communities. Also, Ed can attest from talking with people throughout the district that jet noise is prevalent over broad areas of Seattle, including Greenwood, Ballard, and Capitol Hill, rather than just over Magnolia.
Ed believes that a much more productive approach would be to have Puget Sound government agencies and air transit authorities work to reduce jet noise both at regional level and at the federal level with their counterparts in other metropolitan areas and with the airlines, both passenger and cargo operators, and the FAA. Some of the ways this can be done include requiring operators to use newer, quieter aircraft in their fleets and restricting the use of older, noisier aircraft. This approach focuses on the common good of the region, rather than any one neighborhood.
Finally, Commodore also discusses differences in each candidate’s approach to the Viaduct. We feel there are many fundamental differences, but the future of transportation spells out one of the most compelling of reasons for change. While Councilmember Phillips seeks only to remedy the current situation (as replacement of the Viaduct would be sure to do), Ed is thinking ahead to develop long-term solutions to the problems of traffic congestion and other problems we face today and will continue to face tomorrow even with a rebuilt viaduct. His challenge has been and still remains in each resident having a voice in deciding Seattle’s transportation future. Either we continue in the current manner, adding more highways, and fixing outdated structures at huge expense without decreasing congestion, or we make a bold stand for aggressive mass and rapid transit. As for the claim that surface throughways or streets cannot work, we need only look at the waterfronts of cities like Chicago that serve as examples of how they can indeed work.
In a recent interview with the Ballard News Tribune, Councilmember Phillips was quoted, in his defense of the Viaduct, saying, “…that may be the best this generation can do.” We can and should do much better.
As we have stated previously, our offer to co-host a community debate continues to stand. While forums have proven helpful, they are designed to cover a variety of candidates, and are unable to provide ample time for candidate contrast. Despite Mr. Commodore’s analysis, we feel a community event would provide some tremendous opportunities for our residents to make an informed decision in this County Council race.
Sincerely,
Thomas Pitchford
Campaign Coordinator
