City The Will of the Voters
posted by on March 14 at 17:40 PM
From the moment the votes came in at the “No Viaduct” party at the Edgewater Hotel last night, everyone involved in the viaduct debate was jostling to define “the will of the voters.” Politically, it seemed like a no-brainer: The voters said no to both a larger new elevated viaduct (55 to 45 percent) and a four-lane cut-and-cover tunnel (70 to 30 percent) because they weren’t satisfied with either option. Hence, elected officials should come up with a new one.
However, political leaders had different perspectives. Although everybody agreed that the voters want “collaborative” “consensus-based” discussions about what to do (we do?), they differed dramatically on what that means.
Mayor Greg Nickels interpreted the vote last night as an unambiguous signal that voters “do not want a freeway on our waterfront,” a statement Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis clarified further: “No freeway, underground or above ground.” At today’s press conference in Olympia, Nickels (perhaps consciously parroting political foe Peter Steinbrueck) was even more direct: “Whether it is above ground or below, [voters] don’t want another freeway on our waterfront. This is the 21st century. We must put aside our 1950s mindset.” Nickels also took pains to redefine “capacity,” traditionally understood as the number of cars that are able to travel on a road, as “moving people and goods,” a definition enviros have long embraced but which politicians have been slower to get behind.
Gov. Gregoire paid lip service to Nickels’s new definition of “capacity” (“capacity means if we can find a way to stop 110,000 cars from being on that road, that would be great,” Gregoire said cagily) but still seemed open to the idea of a new elevated viaduct on the waterfront, despite overwhelming opposition in an election whose results she herself said she would respect. “It’s just premature to say anything,” Gregoire said. “We have looked at a [non-freeway] option before and we have not agreed on a way to make it work.”
Meanwhile, right-wing bloggers and City Council member Nick Licata continued to labor under the delusion that a 55 percent rejection rate was actually good news for supporters of a larger new elevated viaduct, because, um, it didn’t lose as badly as the tunnel. “[The vote] will definitely keep it alive,” Licata told the Times. Sort of like that 65 percent vote against the monorail kept it alive, huh, Nick? To quote Sen. Ed Murray, talking to Dan Savage last night, “Legislators who lose 55 to 45 don’t get to be legislators.”
So, to summarize: Nickels is tentatively moving toward support for the surface/transit option (potentially sabotaging Steinbrueck’s attempt to own that position and perhaps set up a run for mayor); Gregoire is probably still for the rebuild, but is open to other options (kind of — the non-freeway option Gregoire said the state had studied is not the surface/transit option Steinbrueck and others support); and Licata is in outer space. Oh, and House Speaker Frank Chopp (a supporter of his own bizarre park-enhanced version of the elevated proposal) was nowhere to be found during this afternoon’s discussion.
It all comes down to one clear message:
We sure as heck don't want to subsidize those downtown property developers with a tunnel.
And we definitely want a LOT more TRANSIT.
Period.
Erica, as the Sierra Club lobbyist in Olymia, I have a slightly different take on Gregoire's remarks regarding capacity. Right before the quote you used about the 110,000 cars, just before that, Gregoire said she agreed with Nickels and that capacity means, "Moving people, moving goods, moving services, moving vehicles..."
This is a major shift. Up to this point, the Governor has always said that capacity means mvoing the 110,000 vehicles, which is why we ended up with the two freeway options.
With this new definition, she's opened the door to other options which will most certainly include expanded use of transit.
Now we have to make sure she sticks with that definition of capacity and that other elected leaders in Olympia agree with it.
So, the vote came down pretty close to where the polling has been on this for the last year. The funny thing is now people are seeing this as a mandate for the surface transit option. The same polls showed that option only had about 6 - 10 % of support. That option consistently polled WAY under compared to all of the other options (including the option that we should all have personal jetpacks or a fleet of the mighty ducks)
I don't think the voters of Seattle said we want the surface transit option. In my opinion people voted no because they are very irratated with the whole process and fight between the city and the state.
I also think people do want transit. Too bad gas taxes collected by the State can't be used for transit.
Hmmm, that low support might have something to do with everyone from the Governor to Nick Licata badmouthing the surface alternative as unworkable based on the designed-to-fail stoplight every block WSDOT plan...
Ahh when we vote for a legislative position I don't think we get to yes or no for every candidate. If we did get that chance in most cases no one would get over 50% either. If three are on the ballot the biggest vote getter wins - what did Clinton get in '92? 44% - 46%
This vote was viewed as a joke by many including the Muni League.
In fact, the choices as defined by the Stranger were a viaduct, tunnel or a no and hell no vote. Clearly it wasn't no and hell no. Maybe hell no and no.
I would bet that the King 5 poll will not put S&T in first place and certainly not with over 50% - I would prefer a gov't poll on this done by someone like Zogby.
Instead of this line of bashing why not actually put out the S&T plan and give us all something to get behind?
Meanwhile, right-wing bloggers and City Council member Nick Licata continued to labor under the delusion that a 55 percent rejection rate was actually good news for supporters of a larger new elevated viaduct, because, um, it didn’t lose as badly as the tunnel.
Apparently, Nick Licata's math skills are as bad as his spelling skills. Did he conveniently forget that not all the votes have been counted yet? That 55% rejection rate is already up to 56% and bound to hit 57%. That would be a 14-percentage-point margin.
Nick, maybe you can win re-election by catering to a devoted small constituency, by carving out your niche as the "lesser Seattle" candidate. But 7-2 City Council votes and double-digit election defeats actually do count for something.
All interpretations of the vote more detailed than "don't like that tunnel much" and "really don't like that giant viaduct at all" are fantasies. Transit? Mayyyyyybe. Surface? Probably not. Some other kind of road? Who the hell knows? The vote was designed to sow confusion, and it was very successful.
Actually, the vote was designed to strike a severe blow to the rebuild, and it was very successful. I would say it was designed to kill the rebuild, but I'm afraid the rebuild is bound to have nine lives.
I think the low vote has a lot more to do with everyone badmouthing everything.
At least this vote got a few important people to change their stances. Now, if we can get a few sides to work towards a common goal for a change....
'twas council person Drago, I believe, on KUOW "The Conversation" today, who somehow managed to communicate, despite Ross Reynolds' best efforts to throw her off tack, that there is almost a billion dollars in improvements to the north and south ends of the viaduct corridor which will be spent over the next 2 years (mitigation funds, you might say, to anyone in Ballard or West Seattle who is furious over what a surface option would do to their commute) (preparation funds, you might say, to anyone who is furious that they might continue to study "a freeway") Meanwhile, the "leaders" get to go back to the table and reach "consensus" on what to do. I think any new thing we end up with is going to be just fine, the sky won't fall -- it's not the '50s anymore. The human factor will be considered no matter which option is chosen. BTW, I'm for increasing transit citywide in as many ways as possible.
Jeez Erica, one would think you might applaud the Mayor for accepting the outcome of the vote in a clear-sighted way and coming to the exactly correct interpretation: no freeway on the waterfront. Instead, you look for the most cynical explanation for this possible. That is very lame and petty. I have the exact same take on the Viaduct issue as you do, but unlike you, I am thrilled to have the Mayor onboard and think this is great news, as he is a key figure in this battle. Do you hate the mayor so much that you can't applaud him for being on the right side of an issue?
@11, I'm not sure "clear-sighted" and "the Mayor" belong together in the same sentence.
The Mayor seems content to change course with the prevailing direction of the electorate. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly shows a lack of leadership.
The take home message is still Much More Transit. That's the message the politicos heard - and they know the RTID will die if they don't respond to it.
That plus one more - don't mess with Sierra Club.
@12: The Mayor fought for the tunnel as har as he could, but said all along he would respect the outcome of the vote. So he's done just that, and I am glad he has interpreted the results as the citizens saying no freeway on the waterfront.
So are you saying he should still be pushing his tunnel at this point? That that would be good leadership? What would you rather have the Mayor saying on this issue right now?
"To quote Sen. Ed Murray, talking to Dan Savage last night, “Legislators who lose 55 to 45 don’t get to be legislators.”"
However, this is in the grand tradition of stadiums that lose 50.1 to 49.9 still getting to be stadiums....
get insurance car quotes
get insurance car quotes
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).