A Conversation With Tacoma's Mayoral Candidates

42 comments

• R RR Anderson August 27, 2009

  On behalf of the Melon, welcome to the 24th century!

• P P August 27, 2009

  I have to say that the attacks were much more direct than I was expecting. Good interview!

• R RR Anderson August 27, 2009

  the fake European accent throws me off though.

• S Squid August 28, 2009

  RR, it’s a fake IRISH accent not European. Sheesh.

• D Derek staff August 28, 2009

  When was this recorded?

  Yes, it was before that … and that would be the one change that we saw in the interviews.

  The actual recording date was 7/31.

• J Jesse August 28, 2009

  Jim makes me nervous as he obviously doesn’t understand that a non-profit budget (like a city budget) has no room in it for crapping out the funds for things that you want. Since there’s no “profit margin” built into the city budget, there’s no room to cut into this zone for capital investments as he kept eluding to on this interview. City budgets are tight and it is about prioritizing. I just think he may be wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to non-profit work like running a city. I’m sure he has awesome ideas for the city though being that he’s an architect.
  Marilyn is the opposite it seems. She has the non-profit experience buut seems to lack the ability to be confrontational enough to really get things she may want.
  So, can we just have Marilyn as Mayor with Jim as her henchman?

• R RR Anderson August 28, 2009

  I liked the attack dog quality of Jim, but also liked the laid back ‘go with the flow’ approach of Marilyn.

  Jim came through with the yard sign though.

  Tough choice!

• R RR Anderson August 28, 2009

  I’ve watched enough crocodile dundee to know a british accent when I hear it. Nice try squid.

• T tacoma1 August 28, 2009

  I listened to this several times. It was nice to be able to listen to both candidates in this type of forum. Both candidates seem very sincere, articulate, and both their resume’s appear sufficient for the job. Only Strickland mentioned transportation as a priority. Merritt didn’t. I checked both their websites, and she has it on her website listed as an issue, Merrit does not. Strickland seems to have a more pleasant demeanor. Which, as our mayor really is just another council member that gets to use the gavel, that might make her better suited for the job. I’m still undecided, but those are my thoughts for now.

• K kooper August 28, 2009

  Merritt had substance, Strickland was all fluff. That was completely lopsided. Great forum.

  It reminded me of the Cheney/Edwards debate in ’04.

• E Eric August 28, 2009

  He got her on the neighborhood council and business district meetings I can tell you that.

• L littleredridinghood August 29, 2009

  Strickland arrives late to everything so she can attract the extra attention when she pops in and doesn’t stay long. She stays involved long enough to get credit for what other people do the majority of the work on. And she’s trying to move up the chain of command far too quickly… fast tracking to… what’s after mayor?

• P Papasan August 30, 2009

  The City Council has NOTHING to do with education.
  She’s PROUD of the Broadway LID??? Money that could have been spent on sidewalks and streets Citywide instead of right in front of City Hall and money that was from gas taxes to begin with.

• K KaCe August 30, 2009

  It is time for Tacoma to have a “non-political” person as mayor. I listened to this discussion. He does do a great job of bringing people together. He has principles, too, as shown by how he stood up to the County Ex. Pat said she’d pull her support if Jim didn’t get on board with the bermed dirt rather than a tressle crossing Pacific Ave. I, for one, was glad Jim didn’t knuckle under. As a new kid in politics, he could have been intimidated, but he stood firm. Good for him and lucky for us. I don’t want a berm… a pile of dirt and rocks? We’re working hard to develop our city and put in the Lemay Car Museum, I don’t want dirt to keep tourists from exploring our city. We need a vision and someone who will stay the course. He’s right for the time. He’s the right candidate in 2009.

• M Mikie August 31, 2009

  It would be nice to get someone into office that has had private sector business experience instead of the same old non-profit public sector fluff. One tends to lead to better management of funds and more empowerment to individuality while the other seems to focus on massive spending and entitlements for certain groups.

• S Steven August 31, 2009

  Is it me, or are there a lot of post in favor of Merrit by posters I have never hear of before?

• S sabs August 31, 2009

  I think Strickland actually has an MBA and several years of corporate and small business experience, but she hasn’t actually run her own company like Merritt. Does anyone know how successful Merritt actually is as a business person? His firm’s web site says it’s one of the leading firms in the northwest but it doesn’t make any of the “top firms” lists like Northwest Construction or Puget Sound Book of Lists.

• D dolly varden September 1, 2009

  @17: It’s not just you…

• D David Koch September 1, 2009

  I support Strickland because after listening to a number of interviews I decided she has the wider vision and a better understanding of everything a city needs. Merritt seemed to be about key issues/projects without the wider understanding of everything a city needs to grow.

  I decided to volunteer to help Strickland. I actually like both candidates. They are both smart and involved, but have a definite preference for Strickland.

• D DavidS September 1, 2009

  Good interview(s). There are some great nuggets in there, but I’m just getting into it. Most interesting so far is Merritt @11:40 regarding master planning: “…not having folks in the planning department that really understand planning…You do not have people in the planning [department] that understand bottom up planning…”

  His tone sounds like he wants to get in there and do the master planning himself. (Couldn’t find much in the way of neighborhood planning on the Merritt Architecture website except for an abandoned ASARCO plan though the site must be seeing quite an increase in traffic lately with the updates.) I hope he realizes the job he is applying for is a very different one.

• D DavidS September 1, 2009

  Interesting comments above. (Particularly #17’s observation.)

  @11: I didn’t hear any f-u’s, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

  @14: Both candidates claimed involvement in the Broadway LID because both believe it’s a success. So do the nearby property owners who now want to expand the LID to their properties. (This despite the tree boxes threatening TNT writers.)

  @16/18: Both candidates have private sector experience. Merritt has been a principal/owner of an A&E firm in some form for over 30 years. Strickland has been a manager in large (SBUX) & small (JayRay) business before moving to non-profits but has never been a sole owner.

• R RR Anderson September 1, 2009

  my mom always said to keep your resume under 2 pages. Jim Merritt’s resume is EIGHTEEN PAGES long.

  Even so, the most memorable Strickland moment for me was the time I watched her do a clothesline tackle-retort to Mike Lonergan’s ridiculous objections to the domestic partner benefits vote… I was all you go girl!

• U uoaaa181 September 2, 2009

  What really pushed me towards supportin Merritt was how poorly I’ve seen the City Council respond to the citizens of the city over the past year since I’ve returned to my hometown. If Strickland has been a part of that I sure as heck don’t want her running the show. And yes, I’ve posted on here a number of times before, just not every day/week/post.

• P Patricia September 2, 2009

  Great interview. But why the barbs at Dominic’s accent. I love his accent. That’s not fake. He IS Irish.
  (http://kuow.yousaidit.com/users/202-dominic-black/answers)

  That said, I’ve appreciated Jim’s support of the Dome District and that he shows up at meetings. And I’ve met Marilyn at meetings about community gardens and food justice. I wish we could have them both. Of course, if we elect Jim, we’ll still have both of them on the Council. Hmmmm.

• R robert moses September 2, 2009

  @22: “I hope he realizes the job he is applying for is a very different one.”

  Very good point. People should realize that in Tacoma it was only recently that “planning” was not treated as a dirty word. Poor planning in Tacoma is not new and is not necessarily a matter of staff expertise. It is endemic to the leadership culture of the city and the tug of war between public works and other departments. It will take years to get it set right.

  Staff doesn’t set the priorities. That’s up to the Council and citizens. Executive management informs/manipulates council (depending on whether they use their powers for evil or good) as does the planning commission. The process for setting priorities has not been very enlightened or intelligent for a long time.

  I think it is getting better, but it is naive and disingenuous to say it is an issue of staff competency.

  There’s a lot of armchair planning on this blog, lots of good ideas, but unless you are an emperor, good ideas and a sense of righteousness only get you to square one.

• T tacoma1 September 2, 2009

  As Merritt is an architect, I would have thought that the Pierce County Master Builders Assoc. would be a natural ally. They are instead endorsing Strickland. Most people also would know be now that our Pierce County Exec pulled her endorsement of Merritt. Who’s at fault on that one, I doubt we’ll ever know for sure but I think our mayor should be able to get along with the people that they will be working with. Merritt seems less suited to that task. I too liked Strickland’s vision for the city. I maybe biased, but she grew up here, and I always root for the home team. Finally, Strickland has acknowledged a need for a citywide transportation plan, even talked about taking the bus as a little girl. Merritt didn’t even acknowledge transportation planning at all. Looks like I’m voting for Strickland.

• R robert moses September 2, 2009

  robert moses truly doesn’t know whom to vote for. only partly cause i’m dead. and not registered to vote in tacoma.

  seriously though i don’t see a liability in not “getting along” with those with whom the city works. getting along might be part of the problem.

  one thing to consider is that leadership needs vision and the ability to build consensus around that vision. tacoma lacks any sort of frontrunning vision that citizens can react to. negatively, or positively. it’s all guns, crime and potholes. all these are important, but not big picture items.

  i’m troubled if merrit thinks he can alone design a visionary city. to focus on this disenfranchises a huge segment of the population. nonetheless the idea that someone thinks they can get beyond the mundane and really look towards a goal is inspiring.

  tacoma is a cool town in spite of itself. it would be a super town if we got past our own dysfunction – which goes at least 30 years deep – and got with it. we’re perhaps twenty years behind the curve of what running a city means. maybe getting over ourselves means ripping the lid off.

  who (among the sane, competent folks) is best for that?

• J jdub September 2, 2009

  I originally wanted to vote for Merritt because I thought that Tacoma needed a Robert Moses visionary to get some kicks into its teeth for the future. But vision always needs a Jane Jacobs to stop a highway though a Washington Square vision. The mayor of Portland had the good sense, or business/political connection, to stop a freeway and transfer funds into a kick-ass transportation system (that, yes, most people hated from the get-go, until the ridership numbers overcame them three months after it opened).
  Here’s my problem with a Robert Moses visionary Tacoma/Portland correlation as I’ve drummed here before.
  Tacoma isn’t Portland. Its not the big dog in the state. Hence the big dog first at the bowl in the state/federal funds like Portland. Tacoma ain’t Portland because Seattle is. Tacoma is more beautifully situated then both, I believe, but alas, it is extremely geographically challenged (something both Portland and Seattle took care of a century ago). But yet presents fanciful challenges non-the-less (as D. Boe has presented, and as San Francisco has overcome).
  So, Seattle gets a rail system to Sea-tac before us, we get a 1+ mile rail system to wonder with.
  After discussions with council members, city staff (whom I think are decent, good working, competent forward thinking persons) I think Strickland is the wise choice. She seems able to build consensus as best as she can in this environment (remember, we’re not the first dog at the bowl, and in that case you need consensus building skills).

• J Jesse September 2, 2009

  Speaking of rail systems… have you noticed there never seems to be timeframes on goals the city lays out? 1.6 Miles of light rail/streetcar is good and they want to do more… but when and BY when? How many more miles by when? Goals have timeframes… it’s one of the most important parts of a goal.
  1.6 miles is good! 1.6 miles every 10 years is not. Get it?

• D David Koch September 2, 2009

  @31: Seriously, could we please get our future trolley system in motion?

• O offbroadway September 7, 2009

  Good format; good interview. (In a Beeb/133 sort of way). I like how Dominic (a name which I happen have a particular fondness for) didn’t always let either one off the hook very easily when they presented shallow fluff. Reaffirmed some of my existing views, yet the interview (and some comments above) made me reconsider some previously-held thoughts. This is really useful 133, making me want to hit that Paypal support button.
  Wow, it’s 0:09:54 GMT… I’m late…

• S sabs September 7, 2009

  Jesse – post 31 – raises the rock-and-hard-place problem. This route has been planned for 20 years, the public hearings began over four years ago, and Sound Transit and the City have spent years trying to satisfy a handful of Dome business owners. First it was “no train, period.” Then “elevate the train.” Now it’s “elevate the train our way.” Next up: debate on color scheme. Plus government is accused of not listening. Jeez.

• R RR Anderson September 7, 2009

  Merritt spoke out on the berm. why fill our downtown with nasty smelter slag?

  Strickland could give a crap. Perhaps if the entire city council came to an agreement that the berm was a bad idea she would have an opinion.

• O offbroadway September 7, 2009

  I did like how Merrit tried to take Strickland to task exactly for that type of thing – not out there speaking out against landmark issues. And asking for examples of anything she started and finished. Either way, it should be lucrative times for Tacoma cartoonists (…especially the ones who speak out against landmark issues.)

• T tacoma1 September 7, 2009

  @RR
  “why fill our downtown with nasty smelter slag”

  Why is it so important to spread misinformation about this issue?

  There is no plan to put smelter slag in downtown Tacoma by ST, by Strickland or by anyone.

  Why make inflamatory stuff up? Why not fact check your info before you write it?

• J Jesse September 7, 2009

  @34: My comment @ 31 wasn’t meant to be just about streetcar, it’s about many issues brought up in government. Too often a politician will say they want to do something and never give a timeframe. I think that’s purposeful on thier part as to not be held accountable for what they just promised.
  Another example is, say, I told my spouse I wanted to pursue a masters degree and took a few classes. I stopped for a year or two and then took another class. A masters degree SHOULD take about two years but if I were only to take a class at a time, I may take 10 years to accomplish it. Is that “on track”? Is it acceptable considering we’re raising a family and we need the money for my next promotion – that requires this degree? IMO, the answer is no.
  A goal is not a goal without a timeframe attached. We seem to never ask our officials “by when?”
  PS- I’m for post and beam.

• T Tacoma1 September 7, 2009

  fyi to all,
  Bridges and train trestles are built with columns and girders. If you build it with posts and beams, it will fall down quite quickly.

• A Ann September 8, 2009

  Ooops, sorry. Should have referenced 39 instead of 37.

• T tacoma1 September 8, 2009

  Actually this is way off topic, but the point about girders and beams is that size matters here. Bridges use girders, not beams, they also use columns, not posts. A bridge designer would know and use the correct terminolgy. Bloggers aren’t supposed to know the diff, but the people that came up with the idea should at least know enough about the subject to be able to use the right terminology.

• T tacomaboy September 9, 2009

  okay, this is about the difference between the two candidates, right? if Merritt had been on the council the last two years do you think Russell would be leaving? the big spenders in city hall and congress tried to save it at the end; maybe a business guy like Merritt would have understood what a business like Russell really needs.

• T tacoma1 September 9, 2009

  Sorry,
  Merritt couldn’t have changed the fact the Russell can go to Seattle for less money than if they stayed and built new here. The economics of the empty commercial real estate in Seattle – which is truly, an internationally known city, would not be anything any one in Tacoma could overcome.

  So unless you think that our city leaders are to fault for the worldwide financial meltdown, use a different measuring stick to choose our mayor (are any of the council sub prime mortgage lenders? If so, it might be their fault).

• A andre September 10, 2009

  What you will see is Merritt blustering about on this issue, saying he would have “looked them in the eyes and convinced them to stay…” The bottom line is that a host of business and government leaders partnered with the city to try and keep Russell here – and they had a better deal due to the conditions cited by tacoma1.

  This will not stop Merritt from taking credit for something he did not do. Sigh.