Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, March 28, 2011

Tunnel Campaign Has 11,000 More Signatures Than Required for Ballot

Posted by on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM

In an appeal to the Seattle City Council's sense of civic ethics, a campaign fighting the proposed $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel sent a stern letter imploring every elected official at City Hall to stop trying to stymie a vote of the people this August and put a referendum on the ballot. Eight members of the council and City Attorney Pete Holmes have been devising ways to sidestep a referendum.

Protect Seattle Now contends that an outpouring of tunnel opposition and the Seattle City Charter demonstrate that a vote is necessary in a missive signed by its six coalition partners. The greatest evidence that the public is on their side: Protect Seattle Now has gathered 27,721 signatures in less than 30 days on the tunnel referendum, says campaign manager Ainsley Close, which would let voters approve or reject contracts to let the state begin construction and commit $930 million from the city. They will be delivered to the Seattle City Clerk at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. That's far more than the 16,503 signatures required to qualify (Close says this is a sufficient cushion for signatures found invalid). And today Elway Research released a poll that found the majority of Seattle voters believe the tunnel should appear on the ballot.

"As our elected public servants, you have a responsibility to allow our democracy to function as mandated by the Charter," write the Sierra Club, Friends of Seattle, Real Change, Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel, Move Seattle Smarter, and the People's Waterfront Coalition. "We urge you to be true to your oath, and not to elevate your own judgment above that of the people you were elected to serve."

But the council seems opposed to this idea. A memo circulated by Council President Richard Conlin earlier this month stated that if the referendum qualifies for the ballot, "Council could file the petitions and take no action on them. Proponents or others would have to bring law suit to force it onto the ballot." (I'll write more about this memo in a moment.)

The full letter from Protect Seattle Now appears after the jump.

Mayor McGinn, Councilmember Conlin, Councilmember Clark, Councilmember
Harrell, Councilmember Godden, Councilmember O'Brien, Councilmember
Bagshaw, Councilmember Licata, Councilmember Burgess, Councilmember
Rasmussen, and City Attorney Pete Holmes,

Tomorrow the people of Seattle will file a petition with the City Clerk to hold a public vote on the deep bore tunnel project. 27,721 people signed this petition, more than 10 percent of Seattle’s voters. By submitting these signatures, the people of Seattle have earned the right to vote on this risky project. We expect that you will uphold the democratic process and perform your duty as directed in the City Charter by acting quickly to submit the referendum to a vote of the people.

The deep bore tunnel is one of the largest and most expensive infrastructure projects being undertaken anywhere in the United States, and it is likely to have significant cost overruns. Nine out of ten megaprojects go over budget by an average of 30 percent. The State of Washington has insisted that the people of Seattle alone must shoulder the enormous risk of this project and pay those cost overruns, risk that the State itself is unwilling and unable to bear. Seattle cannot afford to pay these costs, especially at a time when our State is forced to scale back essential public services. The people of Seattle have earned the chance to decide for ourselves whether we are willing to accept this risk and pay these costs.

In our City Charter, which you have each taken an oath to uphold, the people expressly reserved for ourselves the right to question the judgment of the Council through a referendum. It is a right that is
frequently exercised and, until now, universally respected. We expect you to honor the democratic principles upon which Seattle was founded: that the people are sovereign, and that our right to vote is
sacrosanct. We urge you to be true to your oath, and not to elevate your own judgment above that of the people you were elected to serve.

As our elected public servants, you have a responsibility to allow our democracy to function as mandated by the Charter. We ask that each of you pledge by 5 p.m. tomorrow that you will place this referendum on
the ballot and not silence the voice of the people of Seattle.

Sincerely,

Drew Paxton
Move Seattle Smarter

Elizabeth Campbell
Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel

Tim Harris
Real Change

Cary Moon
People’s Waterfront Coalition

Morgan Ahouse
Sierra Club
Cascade Chapter — Seattle Group

Gary Manca
Friends of Seattle

 

Comments (32) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Baconcat 1
Awesome news :)
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM
very bad homo 2
Congrats, Seattle!
Posted by very bad homo on March 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM
3
Great - so everyone can vote on this AGAIN and express the same preferences they've been expressed over and over again.

http://publicola.com/2011/03/28/voters-h…

Let's just keep the existing Viaduct until it falls down and use the money to pay off the wrongful death lawsuits.
Posted by SuperSteve on March 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Will in Seattle 4
I would like to thank my son, our very popular Mayor, and all the fine signature gatherers that I have seen at Westlake, Fremont, and other areas for all their hard work.

Best $50 brats and beer I've ever paid for.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM
5
Oh goodie... another 10 years before anything actually gets done to solve a major infrastructure problem. Nah, nevermind the threat of the waterfront sinking into the bay and taking the viaduct along with it... can't you people see we've got opinions to express?! Won't someone please validate our opinions as important?!

Arm-chair transportation engineering arguments starting in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by pheeeew!crack!boom! on March 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Baconcat 6
@3: I'm actually a fan of tearing it down ASAP.

Managed closure is better than a potential for collapse in the five or more years the viaduct would stay up with this tunnel.
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Will in Seattle 7
@6 tearing down the existing Viaduct is a necessary precondition to all of the following:

1. Rebuilding the Viaduct to modern sound-proof earthquake standards; or

2. Surface plus Transit; or

3. Surface level cut and cover "tunnel".

Two of the three primary alternates in the current DEIS.

Any of which would be better than that Tolled Transit-Killing Tunnel (DBT).
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM
gloomy gus 8
We urge you to be true to your oath, and not to elevate your own judgment above that of the people you were elected to serve.
"Forswear acting precisely as we would were the tables turned."
Posted by gloomy gus on March 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM
MrBaker 9
Well, this will give you something to do while the project keeps moving forward.
Posted by MrBaker http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ on March 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM
Baconcat 10
@7: Yes, true.

I've ignored everything you've said past "DEIS", I hope you don't mind.

@9: There's also a major City Council election tossed in there at the same time and more than ample time to put pressure on state-level democrats that rely on time and money out of Seattle for next year's big races ;)
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM
Fnarf 11
@10, and when all of the incumbents get voted out whether they turn against the tunnel or not, and are replaced by people so stupid they are not afraid to walk into this burning building, then what?

I fully expect the next mayor of Seattle, in two year's time, to be a labrador retriever.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on March 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 12

Well, out of hand, you can subtract about 100 of the scrawls and "X" marks made by McGinn's followers in the homeless encampment.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on March 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM
Baconcat 13
@11: I don't know, I've met many of the council candidates -- generally savvy people, most of them friendly. I think we've got a good crop, and barring any surprises like an unexpected DUI after a campaign party they should remain viable.
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM
gloomy gus 14
@11, if, as you suggest, we elect to the next council people unable to navigate a decision more complex than where to toss the ball next, I suppose a retriever would be the aptest mayor possible.
Posted by gloomy gus on March 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM
15
@10,

All of the Council incumbents are gonna win re-election handily.
Posted by Mr. X on March 28, 2011 at 3:31 PM
16
#14 Perhaps Fnarf is suggesting that Baconcat would be the next mayor (look at his avatar).
Posted by ian on March 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Baconcat 17
@15: Last I checked everyone's vote counted ;)

@16: Maybe you need to learn more about the world around you. Those aren't labrador retrievers. They aren't even in the same group as labrador retrievers. Nice try, I guess. Gold star.
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM
Will in Seattle 18
Who's a good boy?

Yes, you are!

oh, sorry, I was pretending to be the Powers That Be and their Developer friends imagining they had a Labrador Retriever for a mayor in addition to one for Council President.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Fnarf 19
Oh, for chrissakes. I'm sorry. I've given Mr. Dipshit In Seattle a new meme. Forget I said anything.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on March 28, 2011 at 4:00 PM
rob! 20
@14, that was particularly deft.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on March 28, 2011 at 4:03 PM
21
#17 Wow you are even more dour than I thought.
Posted by ian on March 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM
Cascadian 22
If this gets on the ballot and the tunnel loses the vote, and a lawsuit forces the city to accept the result of the vote, it will be fun watching Protect Seattle Now splinter into rebuild and no build camps and mortal enemies.
Posted by Cascadian on March 28, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Baconcat 23
@21: You're so precious <3
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Will in Seattle 24
@21 speak, boy!

That's a good lap dog!
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM
Baconcat 25
@22: It's not as dire as you would think, the shared vision is there. Talk to both camps, discuss, digest. You'll find that there's far more unity than detractors are suggesting.

For tunnel supporters, this is only the start of a grieving process. A larger and far grander vision for Seattle's future is coming together around the waterfront and it doesn't appear to include a road tunnel.

The case was made from both sides, day in and day out. In the papers, on the web, on TV and on the radio. We were told of a binary world, tunnel or no tunnel. We were also told of a better solution. And we were given the choice. Seattle voters shook off their apathy and for the first time in a long time came together to make a statement. They opposed the drum beating of "tunnel or nothing" and now we are standing together as one city, peerless.

True love and art shall flourish here,
The heart's sweet, tender theme,
Upholders of the truth here dwell,
The dreamers of the Dream.


If it's a risk, if it's a gamble, it's one that thousands are willing to take. And we're taking it.

Hail to the peerless city.
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM
26
RE "The State of Washington has insisted that the people of Seattle alone must shoulder the enormous risk of this project and pay those cost overruns...", except that is NOT what the law says, letterwriters. The law says that Seattle property owners who benefit from the tunnel (or words to that effect) should pay cost overruns.

And no, our right to referendum is not absolute, no matter what you or the charter say. It cannot trump state law, for example, and it's limited to decisions of public policy that the City has a right to make. Approving property transfers, utility relocations, and sundry similar acts are ministerial in nature (i.e. administrative) and not subject to referendum (or initiative, for that matter).

See the court ruling from 30+ years ago throwing out Initiative 21, which would've allowed Seattle voters to cancel the state's I-90 project in the city.
Posted by Citizen R on March 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM
Baconcat 27
@26: How do state officials get into office?
Posted by Baconcat on March 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM
28
Bacon @26. They get there through lawful elections. If you don't like the decisions they or their appointees make, then vote them out.
Posted by Citizen R on March 28, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Will in Seattle 29
@28 they are appointed by the Governor when the incumbent retires after selecting their replacement.

Oh, you meant the other method.

My bad.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 28, 2011 at 6:26 PM
30
Baconcat @25,
wow, do you ever take off your blinders?
The state tunnel project is in progress, a contract has been signed, and it will get done. The state tunnel project actually provides the best surface solution because it allows traffic to bypass the city while connecting the street grid near the north portal, and the new connections of Western and Elliot to Alaskan Way. And the new interchange by the stadiums connects to Alaskan Way and 1st ave, 4th ave, etc.
That "road tunnel" as you put it will be used for decades to come by newer, cleaner technologies like electric and fuel cell vehicles among others. Now how evil is that?
Time to get real about moving people and freight. This is the beginning of the greiving process for the surface-only crowd as they see their option quickly shut down. You will thank the tunnel supporters some day.
Posted by Seattleisagreatcity on March 28, 2011 at 7:59 PM
31
@28,

Which won't happen, because the S/T folks only have 21% support among voters.

Posted by Mr. X on March 28, 2011 at 10:25 PM
32
@ 30, electric and fuel cell vehicles are not cleaner technologies. They're dirty in a different way. (Hydroelectric power, nuclear generated power, coal generated power, mining for minerals to make batteries, all bad). So, no thanks, we do not need any more enabling.
Posted by leabia on March 29, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy