Thank you, Goldy. First reasonable post on the tunnel issue ever.
Legal shit isn't boring, unless people would rather simply whine like kids about how what they don't like is just NOT FAIR, and apparently most people would indeed rather just whine.
Yes, anti-tunnel folks, please please PLEASE continue with all these pointless legal maneuvers. This way we can be absolutely sure there will be massive budget overruns.
You had your chance to derail this process... sometime last year. But, alas, you were asleep at the switch and now you're about to get your long overdue rude awakening.
Yeah, I hate the crap out of the tunnel. But it's better that any legal issues with potential referenda/initiatives be worked out before it goes to the voters, so we don't feel the brutal sting of having the election results tossed out in court later.
Nonetheless, I wish Gregoire would realize that the tunnel has been voted down already, and the city has tossed an incumbent mayor virtually just for supporting it. No one likes the tunnel idea, and better, cheaper, and more responsible alternatives are available.
I swear to god. This feels like the 1960s and 70s all over again: burning time fighting a clearly stupid highway while the time to invest in better ideas quickly runs out.
You think you're so clever. But, way back in 2003, in response to Gregoire's selective challenge of I-831, I wrote:
Should there be a statutory mechanism for reviewing the constitutional sufficiency of initiatives prior to the ballot? Absolutely. Is there? No. And for the Attorney General to pretend otherwise belies a 90-year history in which no Attorney General--her lawyerly ballot title trick notwithstanding--has ever filed an injunction to prevent an initiative from being placed on the ballot.
My beef with Gregoire was that she selectively challenged my initiative; I would have been thrilled if my case had resulted in all initiatives subsequently being subjected to pre-ballot review. But as it turns out, unlike statewide initiatives, city and county initiatives and referenda have a long history being successfully challenged on scope pre-ballot.
So no, you didn't catch me in an inconsistency here.
If Seattle voters soundly reject the tunnel, and then the courts rule the vote to be invalid, it still sends a clear message to the city council, governor and legislature.
It's one of the reasons they didn't ask a clear question the last time, when we voted on two orthogonal viaduct options. The point is to put up the sham that the will of the voters is ambiguous, so the pols can do the bidding of the plutocrats and act like they're leading.
Your comment would be stronger if you reread what Gold said. He didn't say he thought they were illegal. He said that Holmes' arguments have a chance and it's good the court will decide the legality.
Holmes hasn't argued that there should be a statutory review of all Seattle initiatives and referenda. I certainly haven't seen him say what his criteria will be for future pre ballot review, or how he'll ensure that it's the same for future City Attys. Not that I miss him for a second, but Carr never put any initiatives to pre ballot review. So it seems like, yes it is at least somewhat arbitrary here.
Carr was busy doing other things and they weren't all good. Holmes certainly can't make decisions for future City Attorneys, anymore than Carr could control what Holmes does. It's an elective office and elected officials get to make decisions, as long as they're not against the law. Filing suit for a declaratory judgment isn't, as far as we know. Elections are extremely expensive and there's no point in having one if it's found to be useless.
Bailo@9 - voting is not illegal, it's just irrelevant. Especially when big sums of money are involved. Funny how that works. Like the baseball stadium that lost the referendum.
Oklahoma City Mariners... please!
Not to mention the promise of multiple lawsuits and the currently unresolved issues with the GSA.
Legal shit isn't boring, unless people would rather simply whine like kids about how what they don't like is just NOT FAIR, and apparently most people would indeed rather just whine.
You had your chance to derail this process... sometime last year. But, alas, you were asleep at the switch and now you're about to get your long overdue rude awakening.
Nonetheless, I wish Gregoire would realize that the tunnel has been voted down already, and the city has tossed an incumbent mayor virtually just for supporting it. No one likes the tunnel idea, and better, cheaper, and more responsible alternatives are available.
I swear to god. This feels like the 1960s and 70s all over again: burning time fighting a clearly stupid highway while the time to invest in better ideas quickly runs out.
You think you're so clever. But, way back in 2003, in response to Gregoire's selective challenge of I-831, I wrote:
My beef with Gregoire was that she selectively challenged my initiative; I would have been thrilled if my case had resulted in all initiatives subsequently being subjected to pre-ballot review. But as it turns out, unlike statewide initiatives, city and county initiatives and referenda have a long history being successfully challenged on scope pre-ballot.
So no, you didn't catch me in an inconsistency here.
It's one of the reasons they didn't ask a clear question the last time, when we voted on two orthogonal viaduct options. The point is to put up the sham that the will of the voters is ambiguous, so the pols can do the bidding of the plutocrats and act like they're leading.
Well. They are trying to do just that.
With no shortage of apologists and apparatchiks for the Imperial State of Washington.
That does require getting into "boring legal shit" of course.
Holmes hasn't argued that there should be a statutory review of all Seattle initiatives and referenda. I certainly haven't seen him say what his criteria will be for future pre ballot review, or how he'll ensure that it's the same for future City Attys. Not that I miss him for a second, but Carr never put any initiatives to pre ballot review. So it seems like, yes it is at least somewhat arbitrary here.
Oklahoma City Mariners... please!