Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, August 1, 2009
City From the Transcripts: The Mayoral Endorsement Meetings, Part 1
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Mayor Greg Nickels and underdog challenger Mike McGinn debating the tunnel in The Stranger's offices on Monday, July 27.
TO MIKE McGINN: Mike, how exactly are you going to stop the tunnel? Are you gonna lay down in front of the boring machine?
McGINN: Well, there are a couple assumptions there. One is that the tunnel is a done deal. And there was a press conference last week with the proponents of the tunnel, in which they were arguing—well, why did they come out to argue if it was a done deal? And then they showed up, and they essentially admitted that it isn’t a done deal. There's $450 million from the state that hasn't been identified, there’s $930 million from the city that actually has to be appropriated or approved, which hasn’t been done yet, there’s $300 million from the port, which the port hasn’t come forward with yet, so the engineering’s 2 percent complete, you have to build the deep tunnel with that boring machine, which from my understanding is the size of a jumbo class ferry and they’ve never built one this big before. So the assumption that it’s a done deal is what politicians do when they know they're fighting public sentiment, they try to convince the public, you know, resistance is futile. We’re gonna go here and it’s gonna get done, the decision's been made. And that's exactly what they did two years ago when they did the roads and transit ballot measure. Everybody lined up for that roads and transit ballot measure, and said it’s a done deal. If you want light rail, you have to pay billions of dollars for new highways. And the Sierra Club, we stood up and we fought that, and it wasn’t a done deal—So it won’t be a done deal, and you can stop it…
McGINN: Well let me put it this way, I don’t think they can build a tunnel through this town if the mayor opposes it and he has the support of the public, and I will use the resources at our disposal, and I won’t put money into it.TO GREG NICKELS, RE McGINN: Are you going to drive the boring machine over his body?
NICKELS: I hope not. But I think that he makes a good point, and that is that one of the problems I think with the body politic here is that there never is a done deal. That we make decisions or we fail to make decisions, we fail to confront big issues, and they go on, and on, and on, and on. And I think that there is a time for debate and a time for the Seattle Process, and we've done that, and I think that we need to move forward. There are other issues that we need to deal with, there are other issues that we need to solve, and in this case, nobody got exactly what they wanted, but it is a smaller tunnel, it’s 4 lanes rather than the 6 that the state had been insisting on. It is not as disruptive as the earlier one. It provides capacity for freight and goods and services to move through the city. If we’re smart we’ll toll it and manage that capacity most effectively. I think it’s time for us to move forward, build it, reclaim the waterfront…TO NICKELS, RE McGINN: So is he being just a big baby?
No, I think we disagree. I think he honestly believes what he believes…But do you think he's not being realistic?
I think we disagree about this.
Tomorrow: Greg Nickels is asked about his staggeringly low popularity and responds to the question, "How can such an unpopular mayor be effective for four more years?"
1
Nickels helped kill the monorail after how many public votes in favor of it? He certainly never considered that a done deal.
Oh and he supported subsidizing the Mariners stadium after voters rejected that proposal. He didn't consider that a done deal either, did he?
The one time the tunnel went up for a vote, it lost badly. Would he be willing to put it up for another vote? Probably not. He knows it's not popular, and voters certainly aren't going to want to pay for it. He'll just have to make them pay for it, first by convincing him that they have no choice.
Oh and he supported subsidizing the Mariners stadium after voters rejected that proposal. He didn't consider that a done deal either, did he?
The one time the tunnel went up for a vote, it lost badly. Would he be willing to put it up for another vote? Probably not. He knows it's not popular, and voters certainly aren't going to want to pay for it. He'll just have to make them pay for it, first by convincing him that they have no choice.
2
First off, let me state emphatically: I think it's phenomenally stupid and fiscally irresponsible to build a multi-billion-dollar, motor-vehicle-only bypass tunnel to replace a highway that I figure is not even one of the top-five most-traveled highways in our region.
That said, though, I kinda question the earnest, righteous, obvious position Mike McGinn takes on the tunnel. Sure, he's right. But politics isn't about being right; it's about making sure that what you believe is right actually happens.
This tunnel project is not fully funded. I could be wrong about this observation, but it seems like the surface/transit option is going ahead with a lot more momentum--just not as an alternative but as a complement.
I could be wrong about this political observation, but I can't help but wonder if we'd be better off just letting the tunnel quietly die a natural death. By trying to kill it outright through a righteous crusade, aren't we just inviting the highway interests and folks who love the status quo to dig in their heels--not necessarily for a tunnel but to resurrect the worst possible option, another viaduct?
Consider People's Waterfront Coalition, the group who heroically fought to take surface/transit from being a fringe idea to a mainstream idea. I find it telling that you don't see PWC hopping on board the anti-tunnel bandwagon like the folks at http://www.tunnelfacts.com/. And didn't a local news outlet report that Cary Moon of PWC was a sponsor of a Nickels re-election fundraiser?
That said, though, I kinda question the earnest, righteous, obvious position Mike McGinn takes on the tunnel. Sure, he's right. But politics isn't about being right; it's about making sure that what you believe is right actually happens.
This tunnel project is not fully funded. I could be wrong about this observation, but it seems like the surface/transit option is going ahead with a lot more momentum--just not as an alternative but as a complement.
I could be wrong about this political observation, but I can't help but wonder if we'd be better off just letting the tunnel quietly die a natural death. By trying to kill it outright through a righteous crusade, aren't we just inviting the highway interests and folks who love the status quo to dig in their heels--not necessarily for a tunnel but to resurrect the worst possible option, another viaduct?
Consider People's Waterfront Coalition, the group who heroically fought to take surface/transit from being a fringe idea to a mainstream idea. I find it telling that you don't see PWC hopping on board the anti-tunnel bandwagon like the folks at http://www.tunnelfacts.com/. And didn't a local news outlet report that Cary Moon of PWC was a sponsor of a Nickels re-election fundraiser?
3
To follow my comment @2... By the same token, I don't want to let Nickels off the hook for the particulars of his tunnel position. I mean, why does the city have to be on the hook for the cost overruns of a state highway? Did he really need to make that massive concession? Isn't that open-ended commitment in itself the height of fiscal irresponsibility, and isn't it almost begging for an uprising among city taxpayers?
4
@2: My understanding is that Cary Moon wants a city contract to redevelop the design of the waterfront post-viaduct. She is more an aesthetic opponent of the viaduct than an environmentalist opponent, so she's made peace with the tunnel to get her piece of the developer bonanza that will follow if and when it is torn down.
6
Rumor @4, I think you're right that PWC's opposition has been more aesthetic than environmental, though not entirely.
Here's a passage from an email People's Waterfront Coalition sent out to their mailing list January 13 in response to the bored tunnel decision:
Even in the immediate wake of the bored tunnel decision, Cary Moon and company already sensed that the tunnel plan could collapse of its own weight.
Here's a passage from an email People's Waterfront Coalition sent out to their mailing list January 13 in response to the bored tunnel decision:
The bored tunnel still has lots of unanswered questions about its feasibility. Details about its cost, constructability, schedule, and funding will be refined over the next few months. If it ends up not looking like the silver bullet people envision today, People's Waterfront Coalition will be happy to help figure out Plan B. Until then, it looks like we'll mostly focus efforts on ensuring the street and transit projects are done fully and quickly, and keep collaborating with others to lay the groundwork for the best possible future waterfront.
Even in the immediate wake of the bored tunnel decision, Cary Moon and company already sensed that the tunnel plan could collapse of its own weight.
7
bikechick @5:
It's hard to imagine a private citizen political activist who has done more good for this region than Cary Moon. When I ask myself, "Can one person really make a difference?," I answer myself, "Cary Moon did."
But hey, bikechick, I'm sure you've earned every right to call Cary Moon a sellout.
@4 re: Cary Moon
They call that selling out.
It's hard to imagine a private citizen political activist who has done more good for this region than Cary Moon. When I ask myself, "Can one person really make a difference?," I answer myself, "Cary Moon did."
But hey, bikechick, I'm sure you've earned every right to call Cary Moon a sellout.
8
@2 - actually, the surface/transit component is not going forward because it's missing the two key components that made it work: improvements to I-5 and transit improvements. The tunnel package does not include any funding for the I-5 improvements that we all recognize are necessary, and we're about to slash our transit service. There are many who agree with you that the tunnel will collapse under it's own weight and die a natural death (and that if we fight it too hard the elevated will rear it's ugly head), but you know what, I would rather have a Mayor who stands up for his beliefs and for the voters than one who plays politics in the hope that things will work out OK.
9
CNN is right! And for the rest of this insidery jargony baloney, you are talking about a group/person that almost nobody has heard of and so the rest of us don't really care.
What we do care about is the impending cuts in bus/transit service coming our way and the fact that this city is blowing its wad on a car tunnel that bypasses downtown, does nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses and potentially puts Seattle in grave fiscal danger with the expected billions in cost overruns.
What we do care about is the impending cuts in bus/transit service coming our way and the fact that this city is blowing its wad on a car tunnel that bypasses downtown, does nothing to reduce greenhouse gasses and potentially puts Seattle in grave fiscal danger with the expected billions in cost overruns.
10
@4, 5
Leave Cary alone, and get your facts right. On January 15, she and Mike O'Brien co-authored an op-ed in the Seattle P-I opposing the tunnel decision and focusing on the negative climate effects that the tunnel would have: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/396272_….
Leave Cary alone, and get your facts right. On January 15, she and Mike O'Brien co-authored an op-ed in the Seattle P-I opposing the tunnel decision and focusing on the negative climate effects that the tunnel would have: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/396272_….
12
The problem I have with McGinn (and most tunnel opponents) is their argument that's it's 'just too expensive'. By trumpeting the huge price tag around as if the massive expendature is just unheard of, we loose our argument for future large infrustructure improvements.
The problem is not the cost of the tunnel. The problem is the questionable benefit.
By arguing so heavily against just the price tag, we loose support for other large infrustructure improvements. At least Nickles knows that big projects are important. As for whether or not this particular big projects is the right one, that's the real debate...
The problem is not the cost of the tunnel. The problem is the questionable benefit.
By arguing so heavily against just the price tag, we loose support for other large infrustructure improvements. At least Nickles knows that big projects are important. As for whether or not this particular big projects is the right one, that's the real debate...
13
@2 "I think it's phenomenally stupid and fiscally irresponsible to build a...tunnel to replace a highway that I figure is not even one of the top-five most-traveled highways in our region."
I guess the fact that 99 is the only other N-S option that runs through the heart of downtown Seattle straight up to Canada or down to California doesn't matter, nor do the 110,000 commuters (a low average) that use the viaduct each day to get to work. And that is a low average because it doesn't take into account all the carpools and bus riders. I don't agree with the tunnel either -I personally want an Embarcadero style boulevard- but to say that the Viaduct is not one of our "top-five most-traveled highways in our region" is just not true.
I guess the fact that 99 is the only other N-S option that runs through the heart of downtown Seattle straight up to Canada or down to California doesn't matter, nor do the 110,000 commuters (a low average) that use the viaduct each day to get to work. And that is a low average because it doesn't take into account all the carpools and bus riders. I don't agree with the tunnel either -I personally want an Embarcadero style boulevard- but to say that the Viaduct is not one of our "top-five most-traveled highways in our region" is just not true.
14
NumberOne: ... but to say that the Viaduct is not one of our "top-five most-traveled highways in our region" is just not true.
NumberOne, I couched my statement about the viaduct with "I figure," so I may be wrong, but I can think of at least five other routes in this region that are certainly or probably more-traveled:
* I-5
* 520
* I-405
* I-90
* 167 (probably)
Speaking strictly from anecdotal experience as someone who has driven the viaduct quite a bit and has had many an opportunity to look out over the northbound deck from a window at various times of the day, I can say that there are vast stretches of the day when the viaduct scarcely has any traffic, and even during rush hour you seldom see the sort of traffic jams that are commonplace on those other routes (with the exception of I-90).
The point is we don't have unlimited funds, and there are much better uses of our limited funds. We're already having a hard enough time finding the billions to replace the 520 bridge. And anyone who thinks the viaduct is in the same class as the 520 bridge in terms of usage or importance to our region is kidding themselves.
NumberOne, I couched my statement about the viaduct with "I figure," so I may be wrong, but I can think of at least five other routes in this region that are certainly or probably more-traveled:
* I-5
* 520
* I-405
* I-90
* 167 (probably)
Speaking strictly from anecdotal experience as someone who has driven the viaduct quite a bit and has had many an opportunity to look out over the northbound deck from a window at various times of the day, I can say that there are vast stretches of the day when the viaduct scarcely has any traffic, and even during rush hour you seldom see the sort of traffic jams that are commonplace on those other routes (with the exception of I-90).
The point is we don't have unlimited funds, and there are much better uses of our limited funds. We're already having a hard enough time finding the billions to replace the 520 bridge. And anyone who thinks the viaduct is in the same class as the 520 bridge in terms of usage or importance to our region is kidding themselves.
15
Cressona @ 7 says:
"It's hard to imagine a private citizen political activist who has done more good for this region than Cary Moon. When I ask myself, "Can one person really make a difference?," I answer myself, "Cary Moon did."
--
Joe Gandy brought us the World's Fair and the Seattle Center. Victor Steinbrueck saved the Pike Place Market.
If Cary Moon is successful, she will have brought us the gridlock that killed downtown Seattle.
"It's hard to imagine a private citizen political activist who has done more good for this region than Cary Moon. When I ask myself, "Can one person really make a difference?," I answer myself, "Cary Moon did."
--
Joe Gandy brought us the World's Fair and the Seattle Center. Victor Steinbrueck saved the Pike Place Market.
If Cary Moon is successful, she will have brought us the gridlock that killed downtown Seattle.
16
Ivan, so by your logic the best way to save downtown Seattle must be to build a new, expanded viaduct. I'm reminded of that famous quote by an American military officer during the Vietnam War. You know, the one that we had to destroy the village in order to save it.
17
No, wrong. In the first place, there's nothing to "save" downtown Seattle from, except worse traffic snarl than we have right now, which Cary Moon's "solution" would give us.
In the second place, Seattle is not "destroyed" by having the Viaduct there except in the minds of esthetes and car-haters.
In the third place, my solution is to retrofit the Viaduct, for the 25-year project life that WSDOT estimates that a retrofit would have, and build the shit out of all the rail infrastructure we can that would take up the slack 25 years later when the retrofit reaches the end of its life.
THEN tear the sucker down. But NOT until rail that would take the present and projected capacity of the present Viaduct is either built, or under way and paid for.
That would mean light rail the length of Aurora Av N, as far north as we could take it, and up 15 Av W and over the Ballard Bridge somehow, right up through Ballard.
As for a new, expanded Viaduct, the state will pay for that, you know. Seattle wouldn't have to. Tough shit if you and the "design community" don't like looking at it.
In the second place, Seattle is not "destroyed" by having the Viaduct there except in the minds of esthetes and car-haters.
In the third place, my solution is to retrofit the Viaduct, for the 25-year project life that WSDOT estimates that a retrofit would have, and build the shit out of all the rail infrastructure we can that would take up the slack 25 years later when the retrofit reaches the end of its life.
THEN tear the sucker down. But NOT until rail that would take the present and projected capacity of the present Viaduct is either built, or under way and paid for.
That would mean light rail the length of Aurora Av N, as far north as we could take it, and up 15 Av W and over the Ballard Bridge somehow, right up through Ballard.
As for a new, expanded Viaduct, the state will pay for that, you know. Seattle wouldn't have to. Tough shit if you and the "design community" don't like looking at it.
18
Ivan, forgive me for lumping you in with supporters of a new viaduct. Actually, I like your "retrofit short-term, light rail long-term" proposal. Unfortunately, politically it's dead. At least for now.
Y'know, obviously there are a lot of divergent opinions among environmentalists and transit supporters about what to do about the viaduct. Short of resolving our differences, I wish we could at least coalesce around the long-term goal of bringing light rail to that corridor. (I know I wish for a lot.)
Y'know, obviously there are a lot of divergent opinions among environmentalists and transit supporters about what to do about the viaduct. Short of resolving our differences, I wish we could at least coalesce around the long-term goal of bringing light rail to that corridor. (I know I wish for a lot.)
19
Cressona @ 18:
I have always been a supporter of all the light rail we can build, anywhere and anytime we can buiild it.
I take issue, emphatically, with people who demand that we do this ONLY at the expense of road construction and enhancement. Eventually, the Legislature is going to fund, and we are going to build, every single road that we would have gotten with the RTID.
Light rail is the priority, but those highways are going to happen, and if 99 comes down to surface option or tunnel, my money's on the tunnel.
When the surface option proponents tell us whose homes are going to be bulldozed to widen I-5, hell won't hide them from citizen wrath.
I have always been a supporter of all the light rail we can build, anywhere and anytime we can buiild it.
I take issue, emphatically, with people who demand that we do this ONLY at the expense of road construction and enhancement. Eventually, the Legislature is going to fund, and we are going to build, every single road that we would have gotten with the RTID.
Light rail is the priority, but those highways are going to happen, and if 99 comes down to surface option or tunnel, my money's on the tunnel.
When the surface option proponents tell us whose homes are going to be bulldozed to widen I-5, hell won't hide them from citizen wrath.
20
cressona @2 -- we folks at www.tunnelfacts.com didn't "hop on the anti-tunnel bandwagon". we ARE the bandwagon :)
Love
TunnelFacts.com
Love
TunnelFacts.com
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS