For years, City Attorney Mark Sidran has been the most reviled elected official in Seattle. Among progressives, his negative ratings are high, and his list of perceived transgressions are long: loitering and aggressive panhandling laws, abuses of drug abatement laws, the no-sitting law, harassment of nightclubs (usually with African-American clientele), the impound ordinance, the parks exclusion ordinance, and on and on. In the 11 years since Darth Sidran was first elected city attorney, he has come to epitomize for many people Seattle’s new face, taken over by intolerant yuppies who can afford the high housing costs and glitzy stores and don’t want “their” neighborhoods contaminated by the sort of urban diversity Sidran has declared war on. Those yuppies, and many others, give Sidran high marks for his policies. After being elected in a tough three-way race in 1989, he was unopposed in 1993 and 1997.

The “broken windows” issues named above were all on the table in 1993 and 1997. Despite the controversy, nobody was willing to run against Sidran even to force a debate in the electoral arena. Prospective opponents calculated, correctly, that the progressive base of anti-Sidran votes could not win an election by itself.

But in the last four years, a number of other issues regarding Mark Sidran’s performance have come to the fore. A possible Sidran opponent in 2001 would have far more ammunition to use in appealing to constituencies untroubled by Sidran’s war on the disenfranchised. For example:

In mid-1997, attorneys in Sidran’s 120-person office unionized in an attempt to force better working conditions. Bitter recriminations and litigation followed, with the union charging Sidran with union- busting efforts and Sidran scoffing that the bad rap was a product of disgruntled employees. The state sided with the union; the Public Employment Relations Commission found that Sidran had engaged in unfair labor practices. At one point the union called for a special prosecutor to investigate Sidran; the city eventually paid out a large settlement. Such a record should ensure solid labor support for any Sidran opponent.

A number of city council staff and aides—not just the ones you’d expect—say they don’t trust Sidran’s legal advice. Sidran has been asked by the city for a legal opinion on many issues on which he was also a partisan political advocate. Many folks who don’t object to Sidran’s jihads per se wish they weren’t being run out of the city attorney’s office and would like that office depoliticized. A lawyer that’s not trusted by his or her client should be replaced.

Small business owners should be alarmed at the fate of Oscars II, Jersey’s, and other businesses that have been targeted for SPD and Sidran harassment in recent years. The Oscars II case was particularly egregious; the city allowed drug activity on the premises as part of a sting operation and then put the owners out of business for “permitting” that activity to take place.

The same could happen to any small business—particularly, judging by Sidran’s record, one that caters to blacks. Sidran has an 11-year pattern of using misdemeanor laws for what conservatives like to call “social engineering.” A true conservative should be repulsed by Sidran (who calls himself a “moderate Democrat”) and his reliance on new laws, more laws, and still more laws. The same cases, along with the racially biased impound ordinance, drug abatement policies, and routine harassment of hip-hop clubs, virtually guarantee that a Sidran opponent would do well among communities of color.

Sidran’s management policies should concern tax watchdogs—or any taxpayer. Unlike the city council, mayor’s office, and most other city departments, there is almost no transparency in how Sidran’s office does business or spends tax money. One local attorney notes that “the City Attorney’s office is a black hole. . . . [it’s] run like a little secret kingdom.” Repeatedly, Sidran’s vendettas and obstinacy cost the city big money: jailing and prosecuting utterly unwinnable cases against WTO protesters, and defense and appeal of sweeping city employee drug-testing policies, to cite only two recent examples.

There are also possible ethical questions. Critics of Sidran allege several conflicts of interest: harassing of city whistle-blowers, representing ethics investigators at the same time he defends the city, and profiting from policies instituted in neighborhoods (particularly downtown) where he owns property. (Sidran, a millionaire, has eight commercial and rental properties in the city.)

With all of these concerns floating about, it’s remarkable that nobody has stepped forward to challenge Sidran in this year’s election. This is partly the result of Seattle’s political culture, which frequently gives incumbents, no matter how incompetent, a free ride. But there’s more: Attorneys with the experience to manage a 120-person office invariably don’t want the pay cut and public grief that comes with the job; only an ideologue (like Sidran) or political aspirant would seek it out. Many of the lawyers most concerned by Sidran’s social policies don’t want a prosecutorial job. And Sidran would be a formidable opponent; he has name recognition, lots of supporters in the business community and media, and a war chest of well over $100,000 waiting for his next contested political race.

Such obstacles would make a race tough, but rarely has an incumbent earned the concern or wrath of so many different constituencies. It’s not just that Sidran is trying, in essence, to run poor folks out of town. He’s also antiunion, mismanaging his office, costing taxpayers money, harassing small businesses, and giving the city lousy legal advice. One needn’t run against Sidran from the left; he should be challenged and replaced because after 11 years, the city needs and deserves a competent city attorney.