Politics The Licata Option
Ever since Stranger news writer Erica C. Barnett broke the news two weeks ago that the city council may not give voters the final say on the viaduct… a debate over the pros and cons of letting the council decide on its own has dominated editorial pages, radio shows, blogs, and cocktail parties for nerds.
In the “No Vote” corner, you’ve got Mayor Nickels, who is nervous that his tunnel option will go down in flames at the ballot box. (Given that he doesn’t have the money to build the thing, it’s no wonder he’s a little nervous.) He’s practically giddy that the council, which has already voted by resolution to support the tunnel, might bypass the voters.
Of course, he can’t admit that. So, the official spin for the No Public Vote is this: The council and the mayor were elected to lead, and so, let the council and the mayor sort through all the options…including: the tunnel; a rebuild; a cool smart growth, surface boulevard option; and a retrofit…and let them make the wisest choice. This, the no-vote logic goes, is better than throwing all this to a heated public campaign w video ads and distortions and “big ugly” sound bites that ultimately wouldn’t offer up a clear majority opinion anyway.
In the “Yes Public Vote” corner, you’ve got tunnel antagonists like Council President Nick Licata. His official argument is that this is the biggest public works (and transportation) project in a generation: Of course the public should weigh in.
I’m of 2 minds about this.
1) Yes, let the council and the mayor decide. For 1nce they should just show some leadership and make a decision on something.
2) No way, Jose. How dare you (Mayor Gridlock) put the monorail to a vote (a 5th vote!), but not put your unfunded, pie-in-the-sky tunnel plan up for a vote.
One thing I’m certain of: I don’t support the rebuild. The rebuild would marginalize the waterfront for another 100 years, and the rebuild would perpetuate our auto-centric status quo—for another 100 years.
Having said that, during this whole recent debate, it’s actually rebuild booster Licata who has made the most sensible compromise suggestion of all.
Yesterday, Licata broke it down, in the Seattle Times :
Licata, who does not support the proposed tunnel, is pushing for a ballot measure that would ask voters whether they want a tunnel, without giving any other options.
“Build a tunnel or not. That’s what the debate is all about,” he said.
Licata is onto something. The fundamental debate here is tunnel or no tunnel. The other options share a common theme: We can afford them. (And in the case of the boulevard option—we’re going to be without the the viaduct for 3 to 5 plus years anyway, so, we’ve already got an “adapt to life without a freeway” plan in the docket.)
The tunnel, however, is a dreamy option. It’s attractive and compelling—maintain capacity while redeveloping the waterfront and reconnecting downtown to the water. But it’s financially duanting. Estimates are between $3 and $6 billion. Voters should be asked in isolation if they want to go for it. If they do, then the Mayor and the council can move forward w a mandate to push the envelope. If the voters don’t go for it, we’re back where we started, looking at less dramatic options that we can afford and the council can sort through on their own.
At that point, I’d support the boulevard option (as do at least 2 council members…w/ 2 others definitely supporting the rebuild & a majority of the rest leaning toward the boulevard). But first, let’s let the voters have a yea or nay on the option that’s already framing the debate: the tunnel. Voting on all the options seems like a muddled waste of time. Voting on none of the options seems unfair given that the Mayor and a majority of the council have already decided on the tunnel. Let’s stop playing games and put that once-in-a-generation decision to a simple test: a public vote.
Interesting stuff. I'm dead set against putting ANOTHER viaduct on the waterfront. But is there any assurance that a no vote on a viaduct won't result in another viaduct? Tough to say. The boulevard option is compelling, but I don't know if Seattle has the political will to get the change in law to use state money for a non-replacement option. Folks liek the Seattle Times and Jean Godden are chicken when it comes to using our power to make this change.