Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« My Just-In-Time Contribution to Cou… | Oh Yeah, the National League Won th… »

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

City Council May Try to Block Referendum by Declaring Tunnel an "Emergency"

Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Seattle City Council members are considering a way to block citizens from filing a referendum to put a controversial tunnel measure up to a public vote (I report on the referendum here). By inserting a provision into the contract with the state (allowing the state to begin digging under downtown) that declares the tunnel ordinance an "emergency," voters couldn't put the ordinance on the ballot.

Sources who work for the city say that the provision is being considered this week, and a source who works with the city council says that details of any plan, if it is in the works, are confidential due to attorney-client privilege. When asked pointedly, City Council Member Sally Bagshaw said this afternoon, "There are conversations, and you know that there are all kinds of ideas. I don't think anything is firm yet." Bagshaw agreed to divulge more later this week.

"It seems logical that they would consider the voters having a say on the tunnel an emergency," says a wry Brady Montz, chair of the local Sierra Club affiliate and a proponent of a possible referendum.

Whether or not it's even possible to declare a tunnel—which won't even have a completed environmental impact statement until early next year—an "emergency" this summer remains unclear. Here's what the city charter says about emergency provisions:

When an emergency exists in which it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, that an ordinance shall become effective without delay, such emergency and necessity, and the facts creating the same, shall be stated in one section of the bill, and it shall not become an ordinance unless on its final passage by the City Council at least three-fourths (3/4) of all the members vote in its favor (the vote being taken by yeas and nays, and the names of those voting for and against being entered in the journal), and it shall have been approved by the Mayor, whereupon it shall be of full force and effect.

A tunnel may not meet that high bar, and the mayor is unlikely to approve an emergency clause, as the city charter requires. But some are reportedly trying to claim that the council overriding a mayor's veto render McGinn's approval unnecessary. (Any lawyers in the house?)

But the specter of declaring it an emergency irritates those behind a possible referendum drive. Real Change director Tim Harris, one of the players in a possible referendum, says, "I think to preemptively thwart the will of the people is an anti-democratic maneuver."

FacebookShare

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

You Droogs are beat. Shut up and go back to your homes. Tunnel ahead!

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on July 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM

I predicted it. Conlin, you are a coward.

I wish Elisabeth Campbell all the best in the forthcoming epic lawsuit that terminates Mr. Conlin's political career. We deserve a better Council President. Which is a shame, because this one stupid Quixotic event is going to be his legacy.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on July 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM

@2 is correct.

Time for a recall petition.

And a bill of attainder ascribing the costs of this UNWANTED and UNNECESSARY TUNNEL for all overages to the specifically named councilmembers who are SIGNING a DEBT for EVERY SEATTLE household of $10,000 without a PUBLIC VOTE OF THE CITIZENRY.

That's a car.

Or college tuition at a community college for 2 years for 2 kids.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on July 13, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Here's what I love about "Seattle Activitists". Say a name like "Donald Rumsfield" and out of the woodwork come all manner of forceful comments and hatreds.

But here is an issue right in your backyard, one which will steal money right out of your pockets, and you guys lay back and take it! Not a peep!

Proving once again that Seattle is a town controlled by the same 50 people who decide everything and all you "cool people" are just decadent dross, a patina on the bronze statue that protects it from pigeon shit!

HAH!

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on July 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM

@4 Bailo, are you more mental than normal today? The point of what Dom wrote here is that the "people" threatened to take control of the entire process here, and in response the 50 or so people you reference had the freak-out that I predicted yesterday and are now trying to circumvent decades-old city government procedure.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on July 13, 2010 at 6:20 PM

i would like to declare the viaduct a real emergency and close it immediately. thank you. byebye

Posted by geologic on July 13, 2010 at 6:37 PM

i don't see how the council could overturn a veto, considering that to overturn a normal veto, they only need 2/3 of the chamber in support, whereas the emergency provision language says they need 3/4 of the chambers support (7 of 9) AND the mayor to approve. what would override take? 8 of 9? or 9 of 9?

Posted by Cook on July 13, 2010 at 6:39 PM

Ah democracy.

Posted by Rotten666 on July 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM

USA! USA! USA!

Posted by douchus on July 13, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Excellent. This is going to be good.

Posted by Free Lunch on July 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM

i hate votes of the people because in the end 51% of the 35% that turn out is not a vote of the people.

Posted by beef on July 13, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Wait, why do we need to vote on this again? Didn't we already vote NO and NO?

Yeah, March 2007. When the PI was still alive. http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/306714_…

Posted by Westlake, son! on July 13, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Seems like having the biggest tunnel in the world would be a huge tourist attraction. Oh wait...it's underground? Hmmm...that could suck.

Posted by Chadwick on July 13, 2010 at 9:11 PM

@12:

cit ref Monorail votes: 4 Pro, 1 Con. If TPTB are agin it, they'll keep throwing it up for votes until the outcome works in their favor and THEN cry, "NO DO-OVERS!!!!"

Posted by COMTE

on July 13, 2010 at 9:30 PM

@7 - why don't you just go to law school already?

Posted by downbythefreeway on July 13, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Shit like this shouldn't as a general rule be put up to a popular vote anyhow.

Posted by Angry Sam on July 13, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Same things I said in 2006: http://www.belltownmessenger.com/022006/….

Posted by thomasoles on July 14, 2010 at 2:48 AM

Let's see how many council members are willing to put THEIR house up for collateral on this projct. They just don't like listening to the public. None of them. They think they're royalty.

Posted by Vince on July 14, 2010 at 7:45 AM

You guys should push and hammer this story. Seriously; don't let it die.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on July 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Dominic, what does the City Charter say about recalling council members?

Posted by ScreenName on July 14, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Man when I lived in Seattle this seemed to be a trend. The powers that be are SUPER OUT OF TOUCH. Then charismatic weirdos pop on the scene and fuck with everything, then new ones try to undo the fuckery. Tim Eyman anyone? Monorail?

Just get rid of every elected official and start over Seattle!

Posted by Fenrox on July 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Which part of NO HECK NO don't they GET?

We don't want a Billionaires Tunnel, we can't afford it, and that's THAT.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on July 14, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Start building your human-chain lock-boxes now.

I'm not paying for cost over-runs... and I don't want a tunnel neither. Surface Option please.

Get the über-rich and/or big corporations to pay for the thing if the muckety-mucks are so hot for it. Don't put it on the tax-payers... again.

Posted by treacle on July 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM