News Calmly. Say No. Twice.
posted by February 25 at 11:59 AMon
The Seattle Times suggests that the No/No vote is simply a vote of anger that, while understandable (given the circus that’s ensued over the last several months), is ultimately mindless obstructionism that accomplishes nothing, i.e.: it prevents us from moving forward.
It’s true, voting No and No may prevent us from moving forward on building another waterfront freeway, but voting No and No won’t stop us from moving forward. Voting Double No will hot wire the surface/transit option—a much cheaper, environmentally wiser option than either the $3.4 billion tunnel or nearly $3 billion rebuild. At around $2 billion, the surface/transit option will spend hundreds of millions on transit and acknowledge reality by intentionally reducing car capacity—not commuter capacity, but car capacity.
The surface/transit option is already picking up traction among leaders like KC Exec Ron Sims and state legislators like Sens. Ken Jacobsen, Adam Kline, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Ed Murray, Brian Weinstein and Reps. Joe McDermott, Jim McIntire, Jamie Pedersen, and Eric Pettigrew.
A Double No vote will strengthen the hand of these cognizant Seattle-area leaders when it comes time to prevent Gov. Gregoire and Speaker of the House Frank Chopp from “moving forward” with a waterfront highway.
Writing off the Double No position of surface/transit supporters as ill-informed anger is a clever attempt by the Seattle Times to head off its legitimacy, but it’s an inaccurate summary of what’s going on. The Double No vote is a levelheaded position that will move the process forward, just not in the way the I Heart Highways editorial board at the Seattle Times wants.