Important answers from some candidates. But not nearly enough
The Defenders of Highline Forest submitted questions to candidates for Port Commission, King County Council and local city council races regarding airport impacts and tree canopy preservation in South King County.
We want to thank them for performing this important public service and encourage you to read the candidate responses: Defenders of Highline Forest November 2025 election candidate responses.
We cover every Port Commission meeting, and every city council meeting and event concerning airport issues. We wanted to fact check their statements and provide more context for their answers. Although some candidates focused more on tree canopy, many gave detailed responses to airport issues. Kudos for that.
No politician supports noise and pollution
Before offering our comments, some ground rules:
Grading on a curve
Usually we do not grade on a curve. But in this case ee don’t want to be too harsh–especially newcomers. There are no simple answers and many, if not most of their airport-related responses were somewhat vague. As we like to say,”No politician will tell you they support noise and pollution.” But it is that lack of detail that also makes it challenging to know whose heart is really in it, and who is simply hand waving.
For example, it would be a mistake to think that the candidate who supports the highest percentage of tree canopy is automatically better. And newcomers could be given a pass for supporting the Port’s various terrible grant programs. They see a local tree planting and think, “Great!” Incumbents should know better.
…the Port provides a large number of small, but helpful grants, which easily distracts the community from seeing they are only drops in the bucket relative to the harms it causes–and the aid it could easily provide.
Saying nothing says something
It is also unfortunate to have to critique any of these responses when so many candidates did not respond. It would be nice to give these candidates an ‘incomplete’. But that would not be fair to those who did make the effort. The candidates that chose not to respond are sending a message as important as any responses from those who did. Even the responders we are not excited about deserve credit because making a statement is just part of being a good politician.
Willingness to learn
Currently, airport communities (and candidates) are at the lowest-information ever. This was intentional. It took many years to get here. But now, almost everyone gets airport policy wrong. What we look for are candidates with a sincere willingness to learn; not repeat the same empty platitudes that got us to this unfortunate place where so many people think that ‘this is as good as it gets’. That was never true.
The races
Port Commission
All candidates are running unopposed and none get passing grades. A possible exception might be Hamdi Mohamed, who championed the Sound Insulation Repair/Replacement Pilot Program in 2023. But it’s been almost two years now and any good will then soured long ago after seeing how unjustly the program has been implemented.
This is no exception. The Port’s stated goal is to be the most green port in North America. For example, all candidates tout their support for the Accelerated Sound Insulation Program. But the ASIP (which we championed) was signed in 2020 and provided sound insulation by 2026 for multi-family buildings left over from the Third Runway! Some acceleration.
This has become alarming. Despite claims as the most diverse and progressive ever, their policies have actually moved in reverse on airport issues relative to previous Commissions.
The Port is no longer the easy target it used to be. It now runs a sophisticated public relations program that does a great job of presenting a community-friendly face. But today many programs are hand waving. And the Port provides a large number of small, but helpful grants, which easily distracts the community from seeing they are only drops in the bucket relative to the harms it causes–and the aid it could easily provide. It is happy to provide an ACE grant to plant 100 trees at a 3-1 match, betting you won’t notice the thousands removed for airport and freeway expansion.
As much as residents will appreciate efforts to prevent North SeaTac from any future airport-use, we note that the current proposal is to have that transaction funded by King County — not the Port. How much credit does the Port deserve for asking the rest of us to pay for their ‘gift’?
There is always a catch.
State
In the 33rd, the one no-show on this list we give a pass to is Senator Tina Orwall. She is running unopposed, but she is the only current candidate with a track record of continuous advocacy. Although it would have been nice for her to respond, her decade of legislation speaks for itself.
In the hotly contested race between Obras and Schilling, Mr. Obras’ responses stand out as being the most thorough of any entry. (Perhaps a somewhat unfair advantage of having a state legislative aide.) During his tenure on the Burien City Council Schilling has been perhaps the most pro-Port and pro-aviation electeds.
In the 34th District, neither candidate responded. Wow.
King County Executive
Both candidates serve on the King County Council and that matters because they oversee King County International Airport, a large facility, and should have a lot to say on airport issues. But Claudia Balducci did not respond. Ghirmay does have a consistent record of specific advocacy on both climate and airport issues and the King County SCAP, which he championed should be a model for Sea-Tac.
King County Council
Steffanie Fain did not respond. Peter Kwon’s responses were the longest of any candidate. We’re unsure on some of the details, but other than Orwall he has the longest legitimate track record of airport advocacy of any candidate in this election.
Cities
Burien: Sarah Moore stands out as chair of the Burien Airport Committee. The BAC has had its ups and downs, representing their divided council priorities. However that has has been the one consistent local entity for airport communities since 2018, and their recent letter to the Port was an important step to getting the sound insulation program back on track. Sam Mendez was the only other responder.
Des Moines: Since the end of the Third Runway, the Des Moines City Council has implemented an ongoing series of disastrous pro-Port policies (including rescinding their sound code and the loss of thousands of trees and tax revenue through Port development.) We always hope for change. But two races are unopposed and the two others are a mixed bag:
- In Position #1, Challenger David Denino did not respond. Given his detailed policy statements on other issues that is concerning. Incumbent Harry Steinmetz did respond. But despite middle-of-the-road responses he has been on board with the above longstanding pro-Port majority–including resistance to restoring their sound code. That mindset must end.
- In Position #5, Lloyd Lyttle had the most aggressive pro-environment responses of any candidate. Pierre Blosse responses were more nuanced, but he has also been on record supporting ‘economic partnerships’ with the Port as a key to improving city finances. We’re not sure what that means, but that has been exactly the same rhetoric used by the majority used since 2009.
Tosh Sharp was the only responder in Tukwila.
No candidate in Normandy Park chose to respond.
Federal Way was not surveyed. We hope the Defenders reconsider that for next year. Although outside the ‘Highline Forest’, FW is a member of the Highline Forum — and thus has a seat at the table on airport (and tree canopy) policy for all of us. It is easy to forget that before COVID they were arguably more aggressive on airport isues than any city besides Burien.