Thanks to all who came to Wednesday night’s debate and filled out your ballots! We received 35 ballots back after the debate. The vote for who won the debate was 14 for Johnson, 8 for Maddux, and 13 said it was a tie.
Here’s what audience members wrote on their ballots as the most interesting takeaways:
- They’re the same?!!
- Michael displayed his temper
- Liked Maddux’s politics, liked Johnson’s grasp of issues. Best part was talking with the candidate afterwards regarding tenant protections.
- Two excellent candidates- we are in good hands
You gotta believe me, my fish was fish was this big! - Both are very knowledgeable about critical issues facing the city and the working of city council. Michael had more focus on social services and new revenue sources- I like that
- Lack of policy diversity- hard to tell them apart
- Prioritize disconnect of neighborhood planning with city council / dpd issuing too many building permits for apartments and condos without adequate parking. We will continue to use cars not bikes and buses. Preserve single family zoning, I do not like the millionaire tax!
- No good choice
- Maddux is very serious. Johnson is more approachable. Similar positions. Both good candidates.
- Most interesting was density plans for the neighborhoods and encouraging more neighborhood input. Also increased oversight of SDOT to improve use of funds.
- Rob Johnson seems on top of currrent developments with land use and transportation and social services. Maddux also seems well informed on issues. Johnson made a good point about food deserts. He has been visiting community councils before his campaign. Maddux promised to visit all councils quarterly!
No, his fish was only this big - Both had a desire to collaborate around the hard issues of housing and transportation
- Maddux has better ideas, Johnson was more knowledgable
- Land use portion was most interesting
- The discussion on transportation and land use issues was very thoughtful
- Smoking at a park should not be a crime
- Spend now to save more later- both candidates are advocates of the (Move Seattle) levy, as much as it is imperfect.
- Both candidates are excellent. Just what we need to make decisions on behalf of our district.
- The discussion re: human services was not particularly insightful, both in questions asked and candidates answers. Too many generalities and broad stereotypes. Disappointed to not get four questions related to human services.
- This was a great debate! Both candidates knowledgeably and skillfully answered questions on our neighborhoods, but neither had many specifics on how they would work with city hall and the mayor to actually get things done.
Michael Maddux is most animated by wealth inequality, calling for a millionaire’s tax and calling out the smoking ban in parks as the sort of persecution of the homeless where he’d break from the mayor. I could see him ending up like Nick Licata on the city council- speaking for a particular moral viewpoint on the periphery of the council and talking genuinely with his constituents about policy issues.
Rob Johnson is better at listening and being the spokesman for a group. He seems to triangulate his political views, with Michael complaining that he’s flip flopping to parrot him on issues, for instance on developer impact fees. It’s easy to imagine him being council president or high up in an administration some day.
Finally, much thanks to Jeremy Dwyer-Lindgren for the excellent photos, for Alex Pederson for being a great moderator / organizer, and for Kathleen Cromp for hosting on behalf of the WCSC. Go community!
Is everyone else getting this campaign mailing from Citizen’s Alliance for Limited Growth that just came through the mail slot? Interesting approach, they’re painting Maddux as a the guy who will pull back the reins on runaway growth, but as far as I know without any basis in any public statements he’s made. So if you like their agenda, they encourage you to vote for Maddux; if you hate their agenda, you can vote for him anyway – he never said any of that stuff.
I like the Licata analogy, he does seem like someone you could trust to transparently represent those who need it the most.
I got one too. So if not Maddux, who would be the best candidate for stopping the Apodimentization of Wallingford?
livableballard.org recommends Maddux, Bradburd in district 9, Grant in district 8, and Weatbrook in district 6, which has some Wallingford in it. Each of these candidates has their own minds on these issues and there could be some disappointments, but … I think that independence may be as important as their current stands on the issues. They’re the alternative slate to the insider wheeler-dealers. Ye shall know them by their lack of campaign funding.
Yep, got one too. It led me on an interesting search for information beginning with the Citizens Alliance and on to the Seattle Displacement Coalition and then the Seattle Neighborhood Coalition, various side trips and finally ponderings about Bill Bradburd. I am beginning to appreciate one of your earlier comments about the new “urbanists”.
Bradburd is a fairly sure thing, as far as I know? He may not follow the Citizens Alliance et al. agenda in every detail, but he does seem to understand the problems with what DPD has been doing and is very forthcoming about where he stands.
This is the hardest vote I think we have in our district on the whole ballot. Really sort of unfortunate that two candidates this similar made it through the uber-low turnout primary. At this point it’s really hard to tell what either of these two candidates would do if elected or how to differentiate them. At the end of the day both of them support the Mayor’s HALA plan to rezone the City and the Move Seattle Plan to raise housing costs to fund pretty painted bike lanes.
Maddux seems to pretty clearly be the “outsider” who isn’t using the same high paid consultant as the Mayor’s other lackeys, which for me at least is a good thing and seems to be the underlying reason why he’s getting the Citizens Alliance and LiveableBallard backing. But on the flip side I’m not sure if he’d be a reasonable balance to the Mayor’s grow-at-all-costs approach to governing or more of a Sawant loony off trying to remedy every social ill rather than actually trying to govern a growing and complicated City.