Slog
News & ArtsMonday, December 21, 2009
News Our Tunnel
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:56 AM
If state officials think the tunnel is theirs, why doesn't the state pay for it? All of it, including overruns?
The e-mail went out the day after the August primary. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels was losing, and Ron Judd, a senior adviser to Gov. Chris Gregoire, let the staff know he was worried."The Mayor is in big trouble and I am not sure he can pull it out even if he is in the run off. That brings me to the big issue that will be front and center between now and the election ... our tunnel." ... Judd's Aug. 19 e-mail set off a sequence of events as officials in Gregoire's office and the state Transportation Department scrambled to take on McGinn's criticism of the tunnel.
Take on McGinn? This piece in today's Seattle Times makes it clear that state officials—from Christine Gregoire on down—did all they could to block McGinn.
4
I was on the Viaduct yesterday, going to pick up my daughter at the top of Queen Anne when I wondered
WILL I HAVE TO PAY SIX BUCKS TO DO THIS WHEN THE TUNNEL OPENS?
WILL I HAVE TO PAY SIX BUCKS TO DO THIS WHEN THE TUNNEL OPENS?
5
@4: No, you'll have to use city streets. There's no proper access to QA unless you double-back onto Mercer to Denny.
I'm so happy our Mayor is actually fighting for us. Did the lackwits who cry about City Council standing in McGinn's way notice that Conlin is pretty much on board with McGinn? Mr.Baker? Remember when you said Conlin was the new power player? Yeah, looks like he's pretty much going to go with McGinn on this one. Add Licata and O'Brien and whoever Conlin can whip and you pretty much have a tunnel that's DOA.
I'm so happy our Mayor is actually fighting for us. Did the lackwits who cry about City Council standing in McGinn's way notice that Conlin is pretty much on board with McGinn? Mr.Baker? Remember when you said Conlin was the new power player? Yeah, looks like he's pretty much going to go with McGinn on this one. Add Licata and O'Brien and whoever Conlin can whip and you pretty much have a tunnel that's DOA.
7
Just after the primary was a different McGinn, remember, from the McGinn we had before us by the time the general rolled around.
8
Baconcat @ 5, Conlin is quoted as saying that he had concerns about the timing of the Council vote on the tunnel. He was worried that it might be seen as an attempt to influence the race for Mayor.
But he still voted for the tunnel. Because he is a tunnel supporter. And that has been well known for some time now. In fact, Conlin thinks that the contigency funding for the tunnel's construction plan is so generous, cost overruns will never be a problem.
But he still voted for the tunnel. Because he is a tunnel supporter. And that has been well known for some time now. In fact, Conlin thinks that the contigency funding for the tunnel's construction plan is so generous, cost overruns will never be a problem.
9
@7: Nope, I saw the same McGinn who was basically passing the buck on to the council who ended up rolling over after the election.
Richard Conlin is already retrenching the council as tunnel-neutral and soon we'll have an anti-tunnel council.
Richard Conlin is already retrenching the council as tunnel-neutral and soon we'll have an anti-tunnel council.
10
SR 99 is a STATE Highway (route, even).
Honestly, as a non-Seattlite, I've often thought too much of the burden and control was being given to Seattle. I hope I don't sound dismissive you and the local issues, when I say that the issue is bigger than the city.
Honestly, as a non-Seattlite, I've often thought too much of the burden and control was being given to Seattle. I hope I don't sound dismissive you and the local issues, when I say that the issue is bigger than the city.
11
@8: Give it some time. He's already expressing doubts about the process, and he's already seen that running the tunnel issue was a losing proposition for Mallahan and a winning one for McGinn. He's seen that the state and city threw absolutely EVERYTHING at McGinn -- videos, votes and all -- McGinn only tilting his hand slightly to say "the council does what it wants" and still said he's going to hold on to the issue like a bulldog.
And McGinn STILL WON.
Mallahan and tunnel supporters have absolutely no foresight on this issue, nor does the state. The state is going to have to pick up the entire cost and then some to appease the city of Seattle and property owners to get this built. Otherwise, the tunnel supporters and state will end up costing the state hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- in appeals and delays.
Just take the viaduct down by 2012 as promised and then we'll deal with it as we go along.
Unless you want to be consistent and elevate Aurora all the way through the Aurora Corridor and down through Tukwila all the way to the border.
And McGinn STILL WON.
Mallahan and tunnel supporters have absolutely no foresight on this issue, nor does the state. The state is going to have to pick up the entire cost and then some to appease the city of Seattle and property owners to get this built. Otherwise, the tunnel supporters and state will end up costing the state hundreds of millions -- if not billions -- in appeals and delays.
Just take the viaduct down by 2012 as promised and then we'll deal with it as we go along.
Unless you want to be consistent and elevate Aurora all the way through the Aurora Corridor and down through Tukwila all the way to the border.
12
11, I think Mallahan's stance on the tunnel is the only thing that kept him alive for as long as it did. He didn't really have much to run on after Nickles got ousted in the primary.
And frankly, if Mike hadn't changed his militant stance on the tunnel after the Council's vote, I doubt he would have won the election. I know a lot of people that decided to vote for him at that point.
And frankly, if Mike hadn't changed his militant stance on the tunnel after the Council's vote, I doubt he would have won the election. I know a lot of people that decided to vote for him at that point.
13
@12: Mike changed nothing about his stance (check out his own website on the matter), he just said he would do what the council wanted to, which is the function of a mayor. It was still as "militant" as ever, and he still flogged the tunnel repeatedly in the debates and Mallahan still attacked him left and right, and the half-wits out there said "oh look, McGinn moderated his stance", betraying a fairly strong lack of understanding of the separation of powers inherent to a Mayor's position, and the brutal sausage making that goes into electing the mayor of a major city with such large issues hanging over the region.
Mallahan stayed alive in the primary because he wasn't Nickels and we needed to advance a second person to the general election. The fatuous among us in this city would say "it's because people supported him on the tunnel" -- and indeed, that's how tunnel supporters couched their predictions. The reality, however, is that the tunnel probably lost Mallahan votes and drove people to either register a non-vote or a write-in for Nickels. It should have been easy for Mallahan, if only he stayed on-message as being "not-Nickels".
Instead, he frequently meandered into the tunnel issue and his supporters constantly brought it up -- and still do, surprise -- making voters say "oh, well, this must be a vote about who will or won't build the tunnel". In fact, as the polls showed Mallahan taking a stronger lead, he and his supporters ramped up the idea of the tunnel, the state started releasing tunnel-related videos and the City Council voted an unprecedented 9-0 to greenlight a massive capital project which broke every ideological mold that exists on that council. For Licata to support this was monumental and incredibly questionable.
It's far too easy to say "this is a done deal", but the glaring reality of this is that the tunnel ran in this election and lost. It really should have been an election with a result as close as possible to 50% + 1 vote for the winner, if only it hadn't become a referendum on the tunnel.
Thankfully we got an awesome Mayor-elect out of the deal and a fairly principled and people-minded City Council president to take the helm. And the tunnel fanatics are all kicked to the tree-lined bike laned curb, crying meekly about "congestion" and how McGinn only won by saying he supports the tunnel (when he didn't).
Booya!
More...
Mallahan stayed alive in the primary because he wasn't Nickels and we needed to advance a second person to the general election. The fatuous among us in this city would say "it's because people supported him on the tunnel" -- and indeed, that's how tunnel supporters couched their predictions. The reality, however, is that the tunnel probably lost Mallahan votes and drove people to either register a non-vote or a write-in for Nickels. It should have been easy for Mallahan, if only he stayed on-message as being "not-Nickels".
Instead, he frequently meandered into the tunnel issue and his supporters constantly brought it up -- and still do, surprise -- making voters say "oh, well, this must be a vote about who will or won't build the tunnel". In fact, as the polls showed Mallahan taking a stronger lead, he and his supporters ramped up the idea of the tunnel, the state started releasing tunnel-related videos and the City Council voted an unprecedented 9-0 to greenlight a massive capital project which broke every ideological mold that exists on that council. For Licata to support this was monumental and incredibly questionable.
It's far too easy to say "this is a done deal", but the glaring reality of this is that the tunnel ran in this election and lost. It really should have been an election with a result as close as possible to 50% + 1 vote for the winner, if only it hadn't become a referendum on the tunnel.
Thankfully we got an awesome Mayor-elect out of the deal and a fairly principled and people-minded City Council president to take the helm. And the tunnel fanatics are all kicked to the tree-lined bike laned curb, crying meekly about "congestion" and how McGinn only won by saying he supports the tunnel (when he didn't).
Booya!
15
#13 - BS. McGinn's stance was to fight the tunnel at all costs and stop it no matter what. To roll over because the city council supports it was a total reversal of his militant stance.
16
@ 13
Well, there is no question that McGinn's language on the tunnel has been full of equivocation. You can read it however you like, which is the great thing about doublespeak. It seems that you have taken on Will in Seattle's style of declaring victory when nothing has actually been decided, so "booya" for you, I guess.
But back in reality, McGinn did call a press conference to announce to the media that he wouldn't stand in the way of the tunnel after the Council vote. All of the political media in the region ran stories about how he softened his stance, and his campaign made no objection. It was perceived by everyone as a capitulation on the issue, and if he changes direction again, he will do so at the risk of his political capital.
On the issue of Mallahan's merits, being "not-Nickles" wouldn't count as one when Nickels wasn't even in the race. And there is no way his position on the tunnel lost him votes, especially when polling on the issue running up to the election showed most people in Seatle preferred that option.
BTW, I voted for McGinn. I definitely think he was the best guy in the race. But don't delude yourself into thinking that just because he won, the tunnel is dead. It has support from many elected officials and the public at large.
Well, there is no question that McGinn's language on the tunnel has been full of equivocation. You can read it however you like, which is the great thing about doublespeak. It seems that you have taken on Will in Seattle's style of declaring victory when nothing has actually been decided, so "booya" for you, I guess.
But back in reality, McGinn did call a press conference to announce to the media that he wouldn't stand in the way of the tunnel after the Council vote. All of the political media in the region ran stories about how he softened his stance, and his campaign made no objection. It was perceived by everyone as a capitulation on the issue, and if he changes direction again, he will do so at the risk of his political capital.
On the issue of Mallahan's merits, being "not-Nickles" wouldn't count as one when Nickels wasn't even in the race. And there is no way his position on the tunnel lost him votes, especially when polling on the issue running up to the election showed most people in Seatle preferred that option.
BTW, I voted for McGinn. I definitely think he was the best guy in the race. But don't delude yourself into thinking that just because he won, the tunnel is dead. It has support from many elected officials and the public at large.
17
Yes - it's quite a pattern we have for public projects around here.
We vote against one stadium - and it's built anywany
We vote -for- the second, in the nations first privately-financed election which set the stage for that monstrosity of a public-private 'partnership'.
We vote -for- the Monorail, repeatedly, and don't get it.
We vote -against- the tunnel, and have it rammed down our throats anyway.
Nice work.
We vote against one stadium - and it's built anywany
We vote -for- the second, in the nations first privately-financed election which set the stage for that monstrosity of a public-private 'partnership'.
We vote -for- the Monorail, repeatedly, and don't get it.
We vote -against- the tunnel, and have it rammed down our throats anyway.
Nice work.
18
@16:
No, that's completely fatuous and ironically equivocating in its own way. McGinn's language has been full of understanding of the separation of powers doctrine. You can try to retrench it all you want, but it only clarifies your failure to grasp what a mayor does and doesn't do and the kind of lip service he paid in order to dismiss this shot lobbed across his bow by tunnel supporters, especially in his position as a mayoral candidate.
Unless you're going to at least try to understand the basics of city government, please don't begin to make sweeping remarks about how McGinn is pulling a 180 and the Council is going to keep going full bore, especially with new blood and a city council president who is a fairly strong supporter of a strong mayor form of government and, if you'd read the recent article in the stranger, fairly respectful of the Mayor's position and relative power regardless of the current power structure.
So if you voted because, gosh, that tunnel "flip-flop" really sealed the deal, then thanks for your vote, don't be too sore when reality hits.
Well, there is no question that McGinn's language on the tunnel has been full of equivocation. You can read it however you like, which is the great thing about doublespeak.
No, that's completely fatuous and ironically equivocating in its own way. McGinn's language has been full of understanding of the separation of powers doctrine. You can try to retrench it all you want, but it only clarifies your failure to grasp what a mayor does and doesn't do and the kind of lip service he paid in order to dismiss this shot lobbed across his bow by tunnel supporters, especially in his position as a mayoral candidate.
Unless you're going to at least try to understand the basics of city government, please don't begin to make sweeping remarks about how McGinn is pulling a 180 and the Council is going to keep going full bore, especially with new blood and a city council president who is a fairly strong supporter of a strong mayor form of government and, if you'd read the recent article in the stranger, fairly respectful of the Mayor's position and relative power regardless of the current power structure.
So if you voted because, gosh, that tunnel "flip-flop" really sealed the deal, then thanks for your vote, don't be too sore when reality hits.
19
Baconcat, if you had anything beyond a rudimentary understanding of Seattle's governance, you would know there is a lot more to how the Council and Mayor's office work together than what is set out in the letter of the law. And I'm not the one making sweeping statements here.
You are long on insults and short on brains. People that have actual arguments don't break out the perjorative adjectives as soon as their positions are challenged.
You are long on insults and short on brains. People that have actual arguments don't break out the perjorative adjectives as soon as their positions are challenged.
20
kitschnsync, the doctrine of separation of powers is fairly basic and the charter is very strong in saying what a mayor and council can't do in concert. Articles III through V lay it out plainly enough, especially this relevant portion:
The painful irony is that this is all about ethics and you're saying, "no, no, they can do it, it's not legal, but they can do it".
You'll soon find out that there is more than one way to skin a tunnel, especially in the way the charter is written. Emergency orders, vetoes, initiatives, the whole gamut.
Reality might be distasteful, but that's politics for ya!
ARTICLE III. Departments of Government
Sec. 3. HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS; OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS:
The Mayor shall head the Executive Department; the President of the City Council, the Legislative Department; the Librarian, the Library Department, and the members of the commissions or boards created by this Charter, and the principal unsubordinated officers in departments wherein there is no commission or board shall head their respective departments, but no head of department shall have or exercise any power or authority not provided for elsewhere in this Charter. Official communications between different departments, except as in this Charter otherwise provided, shall be through, or by authority of, the heads of the departments.
The painful irony is that this is all about ethics and you're saying, "no, no, they can do it, it's not legal, but they can do it".
You'll soon find out that there is more than one way to skin a tunnel, especially in the way the charter is written. Emergency orders, vetoes, initiatives, the whole gamut.
Reality might be distasteful, but that's politics for ya!
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