On his blog, freshman state Representative Reuven Carlyle (D-36) takes a shot at mayoral candidate Mike McGinn over McGinn's call to put the deep bore tunnel on the ballot:

The proposal from Mike McGinn to put the tunnel project to the voters of Seattle is both inappropriate and unwise. This is a state highway and the state—in partnership with the elected leadership and stakeholders of the local community—has made a decision after eight years of process.

Carlyle's point is a decent one. We can't resort to hitting the restart button when we don't get our way. But what, in Carlyle's opinion, is the correct way to go about making a change? "If you want to overturn that decision, overturn the people who made it, and get new folks in office," he writes.

You mean like we're doing? It's possible that by January of 2013, none of the original players in the viaduct debate will still be in office. With Mayor Greg Nickels out of the race and Ron Sims in D.C., that leaves Gov. Gregoire.

Some of Rep. Carlyle's readers returned fire:

Brice Maryman:

When the public stakeholders recommend two potential options—an elevated rebuild or the I-5/surface/transit solution that McGinn favors—how are we citizens not to think that our elected leaders are beholden to someone else besides the voters? If the governor/KC exec/Mayor had recommended one of those two options, then we probably wouldn’t be in this situation, but when our elected leaders usurp the power of their constituents and don’t make their case about why they are doing it, then why shouldn’t we, the people, remind our elected officials about where power lies in a democracy?

Seems like you’re angry at Eyman and taking it out on McGinn.

In a three way vote, I doubt very much that either a tunnel, a rebuild, or the surface/transit option could garner the fifty percent plus one that would be required to settle this viaduct question, once and for all.