SLOG: The Stranger's Blog

RSS iconComments on The Licata Option

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.

Josh Feit writes about bypassing a viaduct vote: "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."

Josh, this is not about Greg Nickels; this is about the future of Seattle. I don't care if Nickels is the biggest, most hypocritical dickhead on the planet, sticking it to Greg Nickels is not a reason to stick it to the future of this city.

Also, you attribute a disingenuous ulterior motive to Nickels' support for the council making the call itself (fair enough), and yet you treat Nick Licata's new proposal as if the apple had just fallen on his head while he was sitting under the tree. Proposing a yes-or-no vote on the tunnel is a bit like running the 2000 presidential election where Al Gore (tunnel) has to run against a unity ballot of George W. Bush (rebuild), Ralph Nader (surface route), and every other third-party candidate out there (every other viaduct alternative bestowed on us by some genius). No kidding he wants that: he knows the tunnel will lose, and it's in keeping with his Mr. Populist persona.

Just imagine, though, what mandate is left if Licata gets his way. We'll be left with Seattle's voters saying no to something; what we won't be left with is Seattle voters saying yes to anything.

Nick Licata can grandstand all he wants about "letting the voters decide," just like Tim Eyman does, and so far it seems to have helped his political career just as it has made Eyman's career. But we're not talking about the difference between democracy and dictatorship here; we're talking about the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. And I'd rather not sacrifice the city of Seattle for a principle that isn't all that glorious to begin with unless you're Nick Licata, Tim Eyman, or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And let's be very clear about this. The stakes for this issue are that much greater than the stakes on the monorail. If something like the monorail fails, you can always go back with something else (albeit perhaps inferior). If Nick Licata gets his way and another viaduct gets built, that's going to be here for another 100 years. And that in itself is going to be the inflection point that tips this region toward the likes of Los Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix, rather than San Francisco, Vancouver, and Portland.

A straight up down vote (if there is one) is absolutely the right way to go, but put it this way: if it's good enough to put the tunnel to an up down vote it ought to be good enough to put the rebuild to a vote. right?

Now... asking the question 'do you want the Viaduct rebuilt' you'd get instant clarity on whether or not Seattle favors an open waterfront, unlike the ambiguity that would linger after a vote on the Tunnel the way Licata is proposing.

Once you have clarity on the open waterfront, it would then be up to the city/region/WASHDOT to come up for the money to build the tunnel, and barring that... build a surface boulevard.

If no tunnel money is on the table, the DOT will rebuild.

Screw all the blather about voting.

It is is state hiway, not a city street. How funny Licata is making all this political hay when he know that Gregiore will dictate the solution, period.

Seattle is like comic opera sometimes. Old mary jane hangovers or something.

Has DOT decided to just hand Seattle 2.5 billion to- keep scratching and belching to an eventual solution? Thnk not.

If anything, the monorail made us look ineffectual and unfocused when it comes to the BIG problems.

Gregoire is the steward of all those billions of trans money, and the steward of the state hiway system.

Mark my words, in the coming showdown, it is all in Olympia's hands. Money plus state mandate and eminent domaine if needed - trumps Licata"s, blah, blah, blah.

Even given an impuse to get rid of autos in Seattle, the state must maintain trucking routes to the benefit of all that is south and north of the city, and the city itself.

You can't load all the goods and merchandise on busses, millions of tons of stuff - day after day - all on trucks.

The Stranger's Licata fixation is so very hard to understand. On this, he has about as much to offer as wilted lettuce.....

And when Gregoire dicates the terms, her statewide ratings will go up 5 points .... Seattle comic council opera only plays well in Seattle media. The reast of the state would like some come uppence .... or at least some strong rebuke about who runs the state hiway system.

Surely not the Seattle City Council. Awake.

Jake is going in the right direction.But there is one other very big factor -- once you tear down the viaduct you cannot (politically) rebuild it. That's why the Rebuild option is not practical.

Will - you mention our will " to make this change" - ie, something other than a rebuild using the state's money. Money already budgeted, not phantom dollars.

Not a land use attorney, but common sense says the existing structure is there based on long standing right of way agreements - long term easements - or state owned land/routes.

And in any case, DOT would be before the Suprme Court in a month to take what it needed over any objection from anyone.

Eminent domaine exists in its most classic form is for hiways and roads. And recent Supreme court, national and state - have strongly reinforced the takings process for govt.

Jean Godden has naught to do with existing law about eminent domaine.

That state power is more widely used than most of the public remembers or hears about. And, Rob McKenna would love some headlines in a major showdown successful suit against the city of Seattle, acting as Gregoires AG.

SELL SELL SELL! Now you're calling it the Boulevard Option. The No Highw-ERRRRR Surfa-ERRRR Boulevard Option. Next thing we know, you'll just cut all pretenses of journalistic objectivity and call it the Beautiful Seattle Option.

And what do you mean, "At that point..."? That's already the option you want.

Don't half ass your journalistic role. Either be a openly-admitted lobbyist or be an objective journalist.

Also, your suggestion adds a step if the voters vote down a tunnel. Then we're back at the drawing board. Of course, Miss People's Waterfront Coalition, that's what you'd personally want in this situation, but that's not the point. The point is that your idea either gives the Five Cent Piece the voters' green light on his tunnel, or it leaves us no closer to actually performing a solution to our viaduct problem, rather than sitting and talking about it. How liberal. The irony is that posing the question in that form may actually make it EASIER for Greg to get voters on his side. "Let's either build a tunnel that (false promises of a perfect Seattle Waterfront) or let's do nothing," he'll say. And BOOM, away we go.

Jake-

To spend state dollars on the no-rebuild plan would just mean rewriting the law. As for the will to do that, that lies with Seattle's elected officials (on the council and in the legislature).

One other thing to keep in mind: the popular opinion here is arguing the issue assuming the city has total jurisdiction over the viaduct's fate. Ahem...

The popular citations of successful highway removals involve the East Freeway in Milwaukee and the Embarcadero in San Fran. The viaduct, however, has one distinct separating factor from those two: neither of the previous removed highways were official Federal or state highways. Oversight of their maintenance was essentially the responsibility of the respective cities. Thus if they wanted to rip their respective highways out, that was their call.

However, we forget what other name the Alaskan Way Viaduct goes under: State Highway 99. State, as in under the jurisdiction of the STATE of WASHINGTON, who gives responsibility of said oversight to the very WSDOT that has concluded long ago that the highway MUST be rebuilt.

Therefore, what the city decides could be immaterial, as ultimately the viaduct's fate is in the hands of the State of Washington and the WSDOT. Convince them. The WSDOT is already convinced, and unless there is some sort of emergency, the State Government will not override their decision.

So if the state's already decided that the surface/boulevard/fuck the viaduct option isn't practical, it isn't happening. Period. Their analysis came from proven engineers and your's didn't.

Will,
Do you really think that a majority of the voters in Seattle would vote for the Surface option? Because even if the Council "decides" it will come to a vote anyway (via initiative)
No, I think the city is too divided on this for anything except the Retrofit to be politically feasible.

Has anyone suggested paying for the tunnel with tolls? Or the rebuild, for that matter...

Regarding whether the city has any power over this or not, I guess technically the city council and the mayor don't have much power, with it being a state road and all. But the city elects 12 representatives (including, if I remember correctly, the speaker, the appropriations chair, and the transportation chair) and 6 senators, and provided a large margin of votes for the governor. In many ways there would be no tax money for roads anywhere else in the state if not for Seattle. Surely that counts for something.

OTOH, most Seattle voters have no imagination and probably just want a rebuild, done as cheaply as possible. The real constituency supporting the tunnel is downtown property owners. So an interesting exercise would be to go check and see who in Olympia they've been donating to. (We already know they own everyone on the city council except Licata and Steinbrueck.)

Such-meister:

I'm refering to the fact that folks like Jean Godden say that it is impossible to spend state dollars on a no-build option. It is, Jean, unless we change state law. As for whether or not folks would VOTE for a boulevard option... who cares? We're not there yet.

I love hearing people in Seattle talking about "political will" as if they had any clue what that was. Seattle doesn't have the political will to build a taco stand, let alone a major project. All of the major projects in recent decades have been pushed through a pushover city by powerful outside interests with a vision, a purpose, and a plan. Seattle has none of those things anymore.

This time the power player is the state. When it gets down to it the state is unlikely to even bother asking the city what it "wants", because they know from experience that the city has no earthly idea what it wants.

This is the legacy of the monorail failure and a million other small failures. It is the legacy of the "Seattle process" whereby mentally-ill homeless people have more say in civic affairs than elected officials. If it is left up to Seattle, the viaduct will be replaced no sooner than 2150 at the current rate. Note that the more time passes, the less consensus there is on what should be done. This will continue. It is the essence of political Seattle.

Trust me, state pols, EVEN THE STATE POLS WHO REPPRESENT SEATTLE, regard the city with frustration and contempt.

As a result, the city will not get a voice in what happens with the viaduct. Ultimately that's probably a good thing, because most ideas coming out of the city are stupid ones.

The stupidest of all is "no rebuild", which will place a major state highway AT GRADE across the waterfront, which will choke it off forever. The kind of isolated waterfront viaduct haters fear is in fact the exact thing they will achieve if they get what they want. This is also a classic Seattle trait.

If Waterfront Coalition folks get their way, they'll have to build pedestrian OVERpasses within a decade, guaranteed. And there is NOTHING more offensive to pedestrianism than having to climb up and over rather than stroll under a major highway.

Will:

"Unless we change state law?" WTF? How, exactly, do you expect that to happen?

Exactly which legislators to you expect to support that? In fact, exactly which SEATTLE state legislators do you expect to support that?

Will- you have to have beem tuned out.... a bit.

Helen Sommers has publicy advocated money only for the rebuild, Seattle Dem.....lots of senirity, budget guru with claws on he purse.

Seattle Dems have FEW fans outside of Seattle in the legislature.

You think State Legislators are going to oppose the unions who will side with the rebuild or tunnel due to major jobs-money.....or trucking who really demand rebuild or tunnel ...... sorry, there is no block of Seattle Dems on this issue .....

And FORGOTTEN in all the talk talk talk is the states' spoken need to move quickly to forstall a collapse and liabilty in the many billions. We all know it is a death trap and needs to be torn down.

No more time to mush around. AND I think people are getting a lot tired of all the mushing around, year after year after year.......there might be good solutions and better solutions, but, endless debates seem to lead to NO solutions, just more cost and gridlock......the pressure will mount in coming months to go for a solution and get the job done quickly as possible ....... and most voters after all are practical and can live with either tunnel or rebuild.

The irony is that if the viaduct remains as is and collapses in an Earthquake... the one party that will be primarily at fault for forestalling the replacement process will be... the People's Waterfront Coalition. Without their meddling (which dates back to not long after the Nisqually quake, probably even before), the city's probably already made a decision, and began tearing down and replacing the viaduct.

All in the name of a prettier waterfront, or whatever. Great job, Cary Moon. The blood of hundreds, maybe even thousands, on your hands.

Gomez,
I think you vastly overestimate the PWC's power. The simple big fact is that if we had the money to do the Tunnel, we would have started work on it a long time ago. But the money isn't there. And the Mayor/Council know that if they go ask Seattle voters for another $2-3 billion, they will lose so big-time that it would be like a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system -- a major, major blow to their governing credibility.

No, I really don't think the inaction is caused by anyone besides the Mayor and Council who have been holding out for a deus ex machina to oay for a Tunnel which we cannot afford

Gomez,

One other question on the safety of the Viaduct, which I made here.

"...if the Viaduct is in such imminent danger of collapse, wouldn't the first thing a WSDoT engineer — sincerely and seriously concerned for public safety — would do is to lower the speed limit to minimize additional stress on the structure?

"....Why is it business-as-usual as if there was little increased danger? The impact on the corridor's capacity — "throughput" — would appear to be minimal if you lowered the speed on just the elevated structure.

"That doesn't mean that the Viaduct does not need repair but only that it strikes me as curious and a bit too convenient that we are told over-and-over that the Viaduct is failing but yet no action is taken to minimize its structural degradation."

Fair enough, David. Points taken and I'll take that last point off the table.

Your questions raise good points. Why hasn't the WSDOT taken preventative measures if the viaduct's in a state of emergency?

All that in mind, the WSDOT's got the final say here, and the whims of a city are likely trivial in what they ultimately decide to do. It's ultimately the state's decision on how to proceed with the viaduct, not the city's. The highway's fate is legally their responsibility.

Democrats represent Seattle; Democrats have majorities in both chambers. If The consensus choice was a boulevard (a longshot right now), Democrats in Olympia could just rewrite the law that says you can't spend state money unless it's on a freeway.

As for Helen Sommers; if folks were for trhe boulevard option, she would probably back the will of the voters. She was nearly primaried once, maybe she'll get knocked off next time.

The rest of Washington is just stupid Red State hicks. Seattle is the only educated city. Seattle Democrats should just force all the hicks in the rest of the State to do whatever is best. Red State Hicks only want a place to drive their pick up fast. Seattle people understand about urban culture.

Seattle is a beautiful island floating in a red sea of ignorant conservatives. We island people are better educated, more artistic, and live more from our hearts than others.


We must fight for the beauty of our island and rid our island of pollution causing highways that sever our connection to the giving sea.

Will:

You have no clue. My district (the 34th) is mostly in Seattle, and all three of my legislators are determined to rebuild the viaduct. Your three legislators in the 36th are all in favor of rebuilding the Viaduct. Ed Murray in the 43rd is in favor of rebuilding the viaduct.

None, repeat, none of these legislators are going to be primaried over this issue.

But go on living in your fantasy world. This is America and you have that right.

Ed Murray isn't for a rebuild, Ivan.

Well, he sure isn't for a tunnel. What does that leave, then?

Hey you Viaduct junkies!

Do me a great favor and tell me how/why my analysis in this post --
The Retrofit is the only politically-realistic solution.
-- is flawed.

I am not asking whether you favor the Retrofit or the Surface Option or the Tunnel or whatever. But simply from a dispassionate non-advocacy perspective, where is my analysis weak and in error?

I appreciate it.

Well, considering I talked to him about it this last Tuesday at Drinking Liberally, and he told me he was for a tunnel (if we can do it). So there.

Well, considering that there isn't the money, and that Ed knows damn well that there isn't the money (which is why he said "if we can do it"), I'd say that he told you the truth, and that you heard just what you wanted to hear.

There isn't the money, there will not be any money, and there will be no tunnel.

If The consensus choice was a boulevard (a longshot right now), Democrats in Olympia could just rewrite the law that says you can't spend state money unless it's on a freeway.

Show me the language that says the State MUST use WSDOT money to build freeways and only freeways.

Also, given the consensus says that the fuck the viaduct/surface transit/boulevard/Beautiful Seattle option is impractical and research and analysis supports that assertion, your wish isn't just a longshot, but an illogical impossibility.

If we privatize the ferries, we'll have plenty of money.

If we privatize the city council, we can build the tunnel. I'm sure there are children in Thailand who can make the same indecisions for just pennies on the dollar.

Sucher, your analysis is good. It is increasingly apparent that retrofit is the only option we can actually afford, anyways. The tunnel is a fantasy. Maybe Nickels and Co. are waiting for a Democratic House after November to vote in the magic highway dollars. That's not happening, even if the Dems take the House and Senate.

The DOT will rebuild, not retrofit.

The new structure is planned to withstand the 500 year quake.

Money budgeted, design and engineering 20 per cent done - they will not retrofit the old mess.

Dem majority in legislature is not the factor. DOT and the Gov. control this game. And why would the out Seattle Dems say spend more, much more, so Seattle can have a delight of a waterfront?

The blue sky of Seattle blather doesn't go far with most of the legs..... never did, even less in an era of less state money due to Eyman.... and red county voters.

Ivan and Aexia - thanks for taking on the other Will. I've talked with Ed Murray too, and you're both right, the money ain't gonna come.

I predict a lot of unelected politicos if they cram a giant tax (which they have to do) for an underwater tunnel we don't want down our throats, when the state is willing to pay for the Elevated Viaduct rebuild. If they chose the Surface Plus Transit option (real surface six-lane road, no parking, lights every 4-6 blocks only (right turn only otherwise), two or mor e lanes for HOV/bus with demand lights for bus transit) - that might fly, since it's actually CHEAPER.

But the underwater tunnel is dead.

Just like the give money to billionaires Sonics deal.

If they don't pay attention, someone might file recall petitions. Anyone could get signatures inside of two days if they do that.

re: pessimism... I don't think it's about "red staters", Jake. I think it's about the fact that the blue sky idealists don't have to plan transport logistics and maintain the economic standing of a major city. Cary Moon doesn't know shit about keeping a city economically viable.

incest father and daughter with mother and son!

interesting comments

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).