Slog
News & ArtsThursday, July 29, 2010
City Here We Go: The Tunnel Initiative
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM
They want us to vote on whether we can vote:
Today members of the group Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel (SCAT) are filing an initiative petition with the City of Seattle that will force a public vote on the Alaskan Way Deep Bored Tunnel Project. SCAT will need 20,692 valid signatures in order to put the initiative on the ballot. SCAT organizers have six months to collect enough signatures once the City approves the form of the initiative and provides a title for it, however they are planning on halving that time in order to get the initiative on the ballot as soon as possible.
The rest of the press release is after the jump. Oddly, it doesn't explain what the initiative says, exactly. Just that it "will force a public vote on the Alaskan Way Deep Bored Tunnel Project." This is the group—really called SCAT—run by Elizabeth Campbell, a viaduct-rebuild advocate who also ran for mayor last year. There are rumors that a second initiative could be filed by a different group of folks. I'm off work today, so wake me up when this is all over.
SCAT will be using a number of methods for gathering signatures, using unattended signing kiosks - all weather A-frame easels that will be set out in key 2007 tunnel/elevated vote neighborhoods, signing boards placed at select businesses, downloadable petitions that will be available through the SCAT website, and personal signature gatherers. The group does not plan on using paid signature gatherers.Veteran monorail initiative promoter Dick Falkenbury will be in charge of organizing the placement and administration of the kiosks and signing boards.
Richard Stephens of Groen, Stephens & Klinge LLP authored the initiative for SCAT. GSK has been the counsel of record for many initiative and referendum processes in Washington state.
Copies of the petition will be available this morning at 10:00 AM at City Clerk's Office.
The final initiative petitions will be available for signing/signature gathering after the City of Seattle Clerk assigns a number to the inititiative, approves the petition’s format, and provides a title for the initiative. SCAT will announce the completion and results of that review as soon as that occurs, and then when and where petitions will be available.
1
Good old Falkenbury. SCAT is an awesome name, suggesting all at once "get outta here!" and the late great Ella Fitzgerald and dookie play all at once. Have a nice day off work.
4
If you've got the day off work howcum you've already edited your post? Go do something fun!
You know while you're away Slog's guess-which-brother-was-dropped-on-his-head commenter team of Baconcat and Will will keep it covered for you on the McGinn/tunnel front. As usual, I'll be the catty old uncle who doesn't have a creepy little mustache but probably should.
You know while you're away Slog's guess-which-brother-was-dropped-on-his-head commenter team of Baconcat and Will will keep it covered for you on the McGinn/tunnel front. As usual, I'll be the catty old uncle who doesn't have a creepy little mustache but probably should.
5
@4) Right after I posted it, I added the sentences explaining that Campbell is the one working on this measure, and another one may be on the way. Seemed weird to leave that out.
7
Dominic. Go. Do. Something. Fun. (not that Elizabeth Campbell isn't always good for a smile, and the notion of multiple tunnel-advisory initiatives is amusing too, so thanks for adding them.)
8
Oh, this is clever.
They're basically asserting the rights here of the citizenry under City law to challenge the Council and/or Mayor directly. If the Council goes against THIS initiative, they're basically saying they're against the entire initiative/referendum system and interference from the public in "their" business.
If they don't go against it, there is nothing to stop legally from them filing another initiative to force a vote on the tunnel.
Initiatives with initiatives, political Inception. When do we get to Kick the Council?
They're basically asserting the rights here of the citizenry under City law to challenge the Council and/or Mayor directly. If the Council goes against THIS initiative, they're basically saying they're against the entire initiative/referendum system and interference from the public in "their" business.
If they don't go against it, there is nothing to stop legally from them filing another initiative to force a vote on the tunnel.
Initiatives with initiatives, political Inception. When do we get to Kick the Council?
9
And this is how the surface supporters become useful idiots for those who want to rebuild the damn thing.
10
Isn't Elizabeth Campbell the same activist that tried to run against Sally Clark and later for mayor, partly because the SAM sculpture garden put up the naked father & son water feature? Isn't she the kooky activist always taking fringe positions? Dom - will you whitewash her past because you like her initiative?
12
My bad - I mixed up Elizabeth Campbell with Judy Fenton. Elizabeth Campbell had one issue that motivated her - she wanted (and maybe still wants) to keep the viaduct where it is. This is why she's opposed to the tunnel.
13
Since when does a city get to vote yea or nay on a state highway passing through it? Like it or not, this is a state matter, isn't it?
14
Since when does a State get to force a city to pay for a State Highway built by the State Department of Transportation on State Land (or, more precisely, under sea level and under the water table under Port Land)?
Well?
Into the Ninth Gate you go, Fnarf. Bring your death's head key, I'm sure Satan will keep you safe when we have a factor 9 earthquake .... down there.
Well?
Into the Ninth Gate you go, Fnarf. Bring your death's head key, I'm sure Satan will keep you safe when we have a factor 9 earthquake .... down there.
15
@14 Will, we have been over this. The State cannot force the City to pay. The State Constitution forbids it. So rest easy.
16
giffy, you're naive. :)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic…
The legislature has forced Seattle to pay for its own things before or has screwed up major projects, like it did here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po…
Or here:
http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic…
The legislature has forced Seattle to pay for its own things before or has screwed up major projects, like it did here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po…
Or here:
http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/…
17
@16 Saying if you want to do something you come up with the money is not the same as forcing us to pay.
And what did the leg have to do with Sound Transit initial fuckups? They over-promised, they had crappy leadership, but people got together and made it work.
But the fact is that Kastama can say what ever the fuck he likes, the State cannot force Seattle to pay. There is no legal authority for the State to unilaterally tax a subset of property owners or to make a City do the same.
And what did the leg have to do with Sound Transit initial fuckups? They over-promised, they had crappy leadership, but people got together and made it work.
But the fact is that Kastama can say what ever the fuck he likes, the State cannot force Seattle to pay. There is no legal authority for the State to unilaterally tax a subset of property owners or to make a City do the same.
18
If I dig a hole under your home to rebuild your foundation and then tell you I don't have enough money to complete it and that I won't spend any further money and that it will cost X amount to complete -- what am I doing? You have a hole under your house, it's a huge safety issue if left incomplete. Your choices are either to complete the foundation or complete the foundation.
I've created a situation where it's up to you to pay for completion, what am I doing? I'm not asking you where the money is coming from, I'm not telling you how to get the money, I'm just telling you that you're the one that has to get the money because, hey, you can't have this huge unfinished hole under your home, right?
Now add in the bank, holding the purse strings. They're tired of spending so much money on your home. They say "we won't allow any more borrowing", and they don't relent on that point ever. You have a huge hole under your home and the contractor won't pay and the bank won't even consider giving them more money.
How are you getting the money?
Are you forced to pay out of your own pocket, then?
The constitution says you can't compel a city through legislation, but it says nothing of creating a situation where taxation is unavoidable. Which is what's a likelihood in this case.
Playing dumb by saying "oh, but it's unenforceable" is like me shooting you and saying "you don't HAVE to go to the hospital and I can't make you go".
I've created a situation where it's up to you to pay for completion, what am I doing? I'm not asking you where the money is coming from, I'm not telling you how to get the money, I'm just telling you that you're the one that has to get the money because, hey, you can't have this huge unfinished hole under your home, right?
Now add in the bank, holding the purse strings. They're tired of spending so much money on your home. They say "we won't allow any more borrowing", and they don't relent on that point ever. You have a huge hole under your home and the contractor won't pay and the bank won't even consider giving them more money.
How are you getting the money?
Are you forced to pay out of your own pocket, then?
The constitution says you can't compel a city through legislation, but it says nothing of creating a situation where taxation is unavoidable. Which is what's a likelihood in this case.
Playing dumb by saying "oh, but it's unenforceable" is like me shooting you and saying "you don't HAVE to go to the hospital and I can't make you go".
19
Baconcat, the tunnel isn't a "thing", it's a state highway -- an already existing state highway. Legally this isn't any different than repairing a washed out bridge in Grant County. Right?
20
@18 I wonder if the city could sue the state to compel them to finish paying for it in the interest of public safety.
21
@18 But that is a risk regardless. Any project runs the risk of going way over budget and being cancelled midway through. We can agree all we want right now on what to do, but if the shit its the fan its going to be a mess no matter what.
22
@19: Well, legally, sure. You can define it as a unicorn if you legally want to spice up the nomenclature. But I'm not a lawyer, and I live downtown, so my own two eyes and all the documents the state have thrown out have shown that the effects of replacement and catastrophic failure extend far beyond just the state highway itself.
Common sense does that.
Would the lateral failure of a 90' structure in Grant County be the same as the lateral failure of one in Downtown Seattle? Would the economic and social impacts be the same?
Common sense does that.
Would the lateral failure of a 90' structure in Grant County be the same as the lateral failure of one in Downtown Seattle? Would the economic and social impacts be the same?
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
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
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
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (22) RSS