Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 14, 2010
City McGinn: Banking on 60 Percent of Voters to Hike Taxes for Waterfront Rebuild
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Holding a rotted piece of wood that used to be part of the downtown seawall, Mayor Mike McGinn warned of a potentially deadly catastrophe on the waterfront if Seattle doesn't quickly pony up the cash to rebuild the barrier between Alaskan Way and Elliott Bay. He wants voters to approve funding for a new seawall this spring. To illustrate the urgency, McGinn cited an earthquake-simulation video released by the state earlier this year that showed "the seawall would collapse, going back to its historical waterline, causing a great deal of damage." He adds that, even without an earthquake, the 3,500-foot stretch of seawall from South Washington Street to Pine Street is deteriorating. "The fill soil is dropping out and presumably going out to sea," he said.
McGinn wants to send a proposal next month to the city council, which would ask voters in a special election on May 18 to approve a 30-year bond measure to cover the funding. The project's total cost is $291 million, with about $50 million coming from county flood district coffers and utility taxes, and the remaining money—$241 million—coming from voters. A $400,000 property in Seattle would pay $48 per year in taxes.
Under current plans, the city wouldn't replace the seawall for six years, but, McGinn says, "We have to move faster than that." He said that with the help of voters, the city could complete it within four years. He says 50 percent of the wall is damaged and there's a one-in-10 chance the it could fail in the next ten years, taking the viaduct with it.
Bond measures require a 60-percent majority of voters to pass. "We are confident, given the public-safety issue, that we will get support from the city of Seattle," McGinn said. However, he added, "If voters don't approve it, we will take stock of where we are."
Replacing the seawall—typically considered part of a greater project to rebuild or reroute the Alaskan Way Viaduct—is Seattle's responsibility, as a per the city council's agreement with the state. McGinn says that rebuilding the seawall is "a stand-alone project," entirely independent of the viaduct replacement.
However, some are concerned that McGinn could be replacing the seawall without considering the waterfront's future. Cary Moon, head of the People's Waterfront Coalition, says that while "the seawall is independent of the viaduct, it is not independent of deciding what we do with 25 acres of land when the viaduct is taken out. The seawall is the most central, most important link in designing a great public space that will reconnect Seattle to the waterfront." Moon—who thinks the city needs to consider the design more carefully with community planners, engineers, and ecologists—also warns that rebuilding an impermeable seawall, like the existing seawall, "is basically the opposite of what we need to to do for Puget Sound's recovery."
1
Not knowing the technical details of what kind of seawall is the best kind, it seems to me it doesn't matter what pedestrian mall, highway, shopping center, condos, or theme park eventually fills up the waterfront, you'll need a seawall. Unless you'd prefer a mud flat.
2
"The seawall is the most central, most important link in designing a great public space that will reconnect Seattle to the waterfront."
How? I mean there is no real plan that I am aware of to expand it outward or inward, nor would that even be feasible. Why is replacing a structure that is for the most part invisible, the most important link in redevelopment of the waterfront? I mean, yeah without it, the land for the park would slosh off into the sea, but I am not seeing any real reason why the seawall design has anything to do with the use of land many yards away. Its not like the wall is above ground.
How? I mean there is no real plan that I am aware of to expand it outward or inward, nor would that even be feasible. Why is replacing a structure that is for the most part invisible, the most important link in redevelopment of the waterfront? I mean, yeah without it, the land for the park would slosh off into the sea, but I am not seeing any real reason why the seawall design has anything to do with the use of land many yards away. Its not like the wall is above ground.
6
Correction: The STATE wants to replace the sea wall in six years. Two years later than McGinn's proposal. So, unless the mayor can do what no one else can - predict earthquakes - I think we can wait. Why should another highway project be shoved off on home owners?
7
Why can't they build the seawall out another ten meters or so in most places? Gain some free land, and the only loss is a few piers, most of which are built up anyways. Won't hurt the buildings any.
8
@6 We are paying for it either way. That is just the timeline the state has using Seattle money.
@7, because it would most likely cost an absolute shit ton, disrupt habitats, and fuck up the ferries.
@7, because it would most likely cost an absolute shit ton, disrupt habitats, and fuck up the ferries.
9
This seawall deal smells fishy. You create this huge press conference in secret the night before -- don't tell anybody what's up. You hold it on the only day of the year that EVERY Council Member is out of the City on retreat. Say you are going to put out a 60% issue in a special election in less than 100 days. Looks like there is a McGinn/Chopp ploy going on here. Something smells fishy on the seawall.
10
I don't think people realize how much of downtown is built on land reclaimed from the sea. The original shoreline in most places lapped against what is now First Avenue -- Everything between First and Western and Western and Alaskan Way is built on fill. South of Yesler, the original land mass encompassed only a bulbous peninsula a couple of blocks along First Avenue South as far as King Street; all the rest was underwater at least half the time, even as far as Yesler up around Third Avenue.
If the seawall starts to fail, a chain reaction of collapsing fill could threaten the stability of a hundred blocks of the city.
Cary Moon couldn't possibly be more wrong. For starters, she wouldn't know a "great public space" if one fell on her; her idea is a vast emptiness (i.e., a "park"). Secondly, the recovery of Puget Sound doesn't begin in Elliot Bay; it begins in the thousands of miles of shoreline elsewhere. The more concentrated development is in the center, the better off the periphery is. Opening up the seawall like she suggests will just drive more development elsewhere, which will hurt, not help, Sound recovery. Her plan is not just bad urban planning but bad ecology.
If the seawall starts to fail, a chain reaction of collapsing fill could threaten the stability of a hundred blocks of the city.
Cary Moon couldn't possibly be more wrong. For starters, she wouldn't know a "great public space" if one fell on her; her idea is a vast emptiness (i.e., a "park"). Secondly, the recovery of Puget Sound doesn't begin in Elliot Bay; it begins in the thousands of miles of shoreline elsewhere. The more concentrated development is in the center, the better off the periphery is. Opening up the seawall like she suggests will just drive more development elsewhere, which will hurt, not help, Sound recovery. Her plan is not just bad urban planning but bad ecology.
11
What if 60% of the citizens can't afford higher taxes but still want more more more building to take place? There are plenty of things I want but can't afford. There are no easy choices.
12
@11, a new seawall isn't a question of want. It's a question of whether there should continue to be a city here or not. Unless you're cool with seeing the old Federal Building and the WaMu Tower topple into the bay, and have all of downtown west of the freeway close for ten years.
13
"I don't think people realize how much of downtown is built on land reclaimed from the sea."
This. Truer words never spoken. Without a seawall Seattle turns into Aberdeen.
This. Truer words never spoken. Without a seawall Seattle turns into Aberdeen.
14
Is that really what she's advocating? Maybe I'm misreading, but I got the impression she's trying to hold the city hostage by opposing rebuilding the seawall until the city/state agree to her surface/transit plan.
Opening up the seawall like she suggests
Is that really what she's advocating? Maybe I'm misreading, but I got the impression she's trying to hold the city hostage by opposing rebuilding the seawall until the city/state agree to her surface/transit plan.
15
Ok. The seawall must be rebuilt that is a given.
My questions are why didn't Candidate McGinn say that this was something he'd ask for a quarter billion for in his first 2 weeks? And how exactly does he plan to eliminate the cost over runs he himself predicted?
At this point it just smells like he is using the coffins of Haiti as his grandstand.
My questions are why didn't Candidate McGinn say that this was something he'd ask for a quarter billion for in his first 2 weeks? And how exactly does he plan to eliminate the cost over runs he himself predicted?
At this point it just smells like he is using the coffins of Haiti as his grandstand.
16
Forgive me for channeling my inner Dan Savage. But gee, now where are all those armchair experts who said Mike McGinn was all talk and no action?
Oh, that's right. On to Plan B--having to figure out how to pick apart his every action.
So am I correct in presuming that McGinn is taking charge on this while Nickels sat on the seawall issue for years because Nickels has always tried to present seawall replacement as a package deal with viaduct replacement--never mind that the Seattle taxpayers were going to be on the hook for the seawall either way?
If I'm interpreting this correctly, then I've got to say, this is looking like a shrewd move on our new mayor's part.
Oh, that's right. On to Plan B--having to figure out how to pick apart his every action.
So am I correct in presuming that McGinn is taking charge on this while Nickels sat on the seawall issue for years because Nickels has always tried to present seawall replacement as a package deal with viaduct replacement--never mind that the Seattle taxpayers were going to be on the hook for the seawall either way?
If I'm interpreting this correctly, then I've got to say, this is looking like a shrewd move on our new mayor's part.
17
Count me as mystified too over Cary Moon's protest. What's the importance of permeable vs. impermeable? And isn't that a separate issue from deciding what the eventual public space, if any, will be like? And how does the public space part affect the timing of the seawall rebuild?
Zander @15: At this point it just smells like he is using the coffins of Haiti as his grandstand.
Zander, I'm sure I'm not the only person who love to hear you elaborate on and explain this observation.
Zander @15: At this point it just smells like he is using the coffins of Haiti as his grandstand.
Zander, I'm sure I'm not the only person who love to hear you elaborate on and explain this observation.
18
Fuck liberals. They love to kiss rich people's asses and make working and poor people pay for everything... Just like conservatives.
19
If you look at Moon's plan, on the People's Waterfront page, it involves restoring the waterfront in the commercial and industrial heart of the city to something like it was when it was only Duwamish Indians here: tide flats, gravel beds, salmon redds, gentle waves lapping at the water's edge, that sort of thing.
I think that's a terrible idea, because I don't think it's going to work, and I think it's misguided to try to bring the country into the city; our ecological efforts to restore and protect the Sound should be concentrated on where we know it will make a difference, such as the ongoing Superfund cleanup of the Duwamish, and, in terms of salmon and other sea life, halting or reversing the destruction of thousands of miles of habitat all along the Sound, not in the city. Gravel beds in downtown isn't going to do fuck-all to increase oxygenation of Hood Canal.
Moon is correct on one point, though -- it does make sense to at least look at the bigger picture, for the simple reason that a new seawall is going to require digging up the old one, which is going to make the waterfront completely inaccessible for quite some time; and it would be profoundly stupid to do that without any idea of what you're going to do up top, which might require digging it all up again.
It wouldn't surprise me if the mayor was trying to be sneaky and building the seawall in such a way as to render the tunnel project either impossible or prohibitively expensive (say, adding another couple of billion on top).
I think that's a terrible idea, because I don't think it's going to work, and I think it's misguided to try to bring the country into the city; our ecological efforts to restore and protect the Sound should be concentrated on where we know it will make a difference, such as the ongoing Superfund cleanup of the Duwamish, and, in terms of salmon and other sea life, halting or reversing the destruction of thousands of miles of habitat all along the Sound, not in the city. Gravel beds in downtown isn't going to do fuck-all to increase oxygenation of Hood Canal.
Moon is correct on one point, though -- it does make sense to at least look at the bigger picture, for the simple reason that a new seawall is going to require digging up the old one, which is going to make the waterfront completely inaccessible for quite some time; and it would be profoundly stupid to do that without any idea of what you're going to do up top, which might require digging it all up again.
It wouldn't surprise me if the mayor was trying to be sneaky and building the seawall in such a way as to render the tunnel project either impossible or prohibitively expensive (say, adding another couple of billion on top).
20
@16 To be fair he has just announced something. That is not actually doing something
@19, The tunnel is nowhere near the seawall.
@19, The tunnel is nowhere near the seawall.
21
My god! A Seattle resident thinks that the local government needs to more carefully consider something and involve a fuck ton of people to talk about it for years before we even decide what we might want to do? That never happens here!!!
*goes into corner and claws out own eyes*
*goes into corner and claws out own eyes*
22
Creasona
McGinn is pushing for this just now because earthquakes and the damage they cause have been in the news. I am thinking you are only one who did not connect those dots. A large part of reasoning pivots on the word "Earthquake". Maybe you should pay more attention to the news and McGinn's statements.
McGinn is pushing for this just now because earthquakes and the damage they cause have been in the news. I am thinking you are only one who did not connect those dots. A large part of reasoning pivots on the word "Earthquake". Maybe you should pay more attention to the news and McGinn's statements.
23
No, I think Fnarf's got it right. de-linking the seawall from the tunnel project is a cagey move for McGinn to propose.
If approved by the voters it would basically remove one of the financial underpinnings (pun intended) to the overall project, and put the State in the unenviable position of absorbing the cost of any subsequent re-construction of the wall once it was completed, because there would simply be no way in hell they could convince Seattle voters at that point to pay for a second rebuilding of the wall just to satisfy the requirements of the tunnel project itself.
So,if the State wanted any additional work done to the seawall, and they could no longer depend on squeezing it out of Seattle (which is the current plan), WA-DOT would have little choice but to get the funding from another source. That alone could add enough additional cost to put the entire project out-of-reach, especially seeing as there's already a gap of $2B (and growing by the day) between what's needed to fully fund the project and what's currently available.
@20:
If you look at maps of the proposed tunnel replacement project the south terminus of the seawall would abut directly against the tunnel itself, while roughly the central one-third of the tunnel would be drilled anywhere from a few feet to a few hundred feet from the wall, traversing in-fill that the wall is specifically designed to hold in place.
I for one would characterize that as most definitely putting the tunnel somewhere NEAR the seawall...
If approved by the voters it would basically remove one of the financial underpinnings (pun intended) to the overall project, and put the State in the unenviable position of absorbing the cost of any subsequent re-construction of the wall once it was completed, because there would simply be no way in hell they could convince Seattle voters at that point to pay for a second rebuilding of the wall just to satisfy the requirements of the tunnel project itself.
So,if the State wanted any additional work done to the seawall, and they could no longer depend on squeezing it out of Seattle (which is the current plan), WA-DOT would have little choice but to get the funding from another source. That alone could add enough additional cost to put the entire project out-of-reach, especially seeing as there's already a gap of $2B (and growing by the day) between what's needed to fully fund the project and what's currently available.
@20:
If you look at maps of the proposed tunnel replacement project the south terminus of the seawall would abut directly against the tunnel itself, while roughly the central one-third of the tunnel would be drilled anywhere from a few feet to a few hundred feet from the wall, traversing in-fill that the wall is specifically designed to hold in place.
I for one would characterize that as most definitely putting the tunnel somewhere NEAR the seawall...
24
Oh good, put it to a vote of the people. Maybe when it fails to get 60% of the vote (not much will), McGinn will have to grow a set, and start telling us what he's going to *do* rather than just asking us for input.
Personally I won't vote for any McGinn initiatives until he makes it clear that he will not obstruct the plan crafted with great difficulty over eight years to replace the existing abomination that is the viaduct with a new right of way for the state highway. If he had a viable plan to replace that highway, then I'd listen, but so far all I've heard is his objections. No sign of leadership.
Personally I won't vote for any McGinn initiatives until he makes it clear that he will not obstruct the plan crafted with great difficulty over eight years to replace the existing abomination that is the viaduct with a new right of way for the state highway. If he had a viable plan to replace that highway, then I'd listen, but so far all I've heard is his objections. No sign of leadership.
25
@23 Except that the tunnel is much deeper. And it is only that close for a very short distance then it much further away.
27
@25:
The revised configuration of the South Portal proposes to move the tunnel entrance several hundred feet north and run that directly under Alaskan Way, rather than all the way under First Avenue as was originally proposed. So, that section of the tunnel is going to go directly under the seawall as a depth of about 60' at its closest point and then gradually veer off under First Avenue (starting at about Yesler from the looks of it) to a maximum distance of roughly 600' away from the north end of the wall at a depth of 130' depth at that point.
In terms of absolute distance that may seem like a good separation, but for two structures running almost in parallel for nearly 1.5 miles that's still pretty darned close.
The revised configuration of the South Portal proposes to move the tunnel entrance several hundred feet north and run that directly under Alaskan Way, rather than all the way under First Avenue as was originally proposed. So, that section of the tunnel is going to go directly under the seawall as a depth of about 60' at its closest point and then gradually veer off under First Avenue (starting at about Yesler from the looks of it) to a maximum distance of roughly 600' away from the north end of the wall at a depth of 130' depth at that point.
In terms of absolute distance that may seem like a good separation, but for two structures running almost in parallel for nearly 1.5 miles that's still pretty darned close.
28
Hey, McGinn looks pretty cleaned up in this photo. I guess he got tired of being mistaken for a hobo.
29
Yep, I hate to say it but i'll vote with WIll on this one. I will approve this seawall rebuild as soon as the 99 replacement tunnel is scrapped. The next downtown LINK line--from Ballard to WeSea--will be elevated, and will run along the rebuilt waterfront.
30
The new tunnel has nothing to do with the seawall. They have been viewed as separate projects since the cut-and-cover tunnel along the waterfront was killed.
What Cary and many others are saying is we have a once in a hundred years chance to make a decision. We can build a bullshit-fuckthefish-vertical wall without concern for the environment. Or we can look at the example of cities around the world and build a seawall for not that much more expense that is sensitive to the environment.
McGinn failed on this one:
1) Didn't talk to council
2) Didn't talk to enviro allies
3) Didn't even talk about good environmental design
4) Rolls out big tax for ill-defined project as first initiative
5) Wants to make a May election on a big tax the first referendum on his administration five months in--too big a risk--what if he loses?
What Cary and many others are saying is we have a once in a hundred years chance to make a decision. We can build a bullshit-fuckthefish-vertical wall without concern for the environment. Or we can look at the example of cities around the world and build a seawall for not that much more expense that is sensitive to the environment.
McGinn failed on this one:
1) Didn't talk to council
2) Didn't talk to enviro allies
3) Didn't even talk about good environmental design
4) Rolls out big tax for ill-defined project as first initiative
5) Wants to make a May election on a big tax the first referendum on his administration five months in--too big a risk--what if he loses?
31
@30 - yeah, like council ever made up its mind and put anything people who actually live here will vote for ... not.
A Mayor proposes. A City Council either takes action - or as is more common in Seattle, dithers and hems and haws.
A Mayor proposes. A City Council either takes action - or as is more common in Seattle, dithers and hems and haws.
32
Obviously McGinn is moving way too fast. We should wait nine more years before addressing the seawall!
33
the "seawall" up in the sculpture park is what cary's suggesting - it's a beach. go check it out.
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 (34) RSS