Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« "I'm going to show you God does exi… | Joe Bageant »

Thursday, March 31, 2011

City Someone, Call the Guinness Book!

Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Because this sounds like one seriously broken record:

Mayor’s statement

“State law says Seattle will pay for all cost overruns on the deep-bored tunnel. Before putting the public on the hook for cost overruns, we should first ask their permission. That’s why I support a public vote.”

Uh... is there anyone in Seattle—living or dead—who isn't aware the tunnel cost overrun provision at this point?

Comments (32) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

The Governator and the City Council President come to mind.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 3:55 PM

So coming back to what I said earlier today:

I fail to understand the beating of the dead horse by the name of cost overruns. Cost overruns were nothing but a "practical" objection McGinn and his crew had to the project when the real objection was actually an ideological one against "auto-centric" transportation projects. If McGinn or anyone else gave a shit about cost overruns he would have spent the first year of his office delivering a solution to the people of Seattle rather than doing stupid bullshit like pissing the Governor off to the point of her not even wanting to talk to him. His objective since day one has been obstruction and cost overruns were the magic hat he was able to pull all of his other objections from.

He was never serious about working with the state to get this plan fixed for Seattle. He wanted to break the tunnel, not find ways to make it work.

Of course looking back you'll scream and cry "I TOLD YOU SO!" pointing the finger at the State and the Governor and The Seattle Times and Seattle voters and anyone else you can blame when the overrun bill comes due rather than accepting the fact that the guy who was supposed to solve this for us squandered his chance with his piss poor, totally ineffectual leadership.

Posted by Solar System on March 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Wait, what?

Posted by giantbaiting

on March 31, 2011 at 3:57 PM

It's unenforceable, which is why it was repealed last year. I mean this year. I mean it's why Senator Kastama retracted his desire to enforce it with enough votes to pass a bill. wait.

Ummm...well, it isn't so poorly financed that even a hypothetical loss of $54mil, or 2% of total costs, would be a problem.

Errrrrr, job-killing taxes roads are a green sokution veto all transit!!!

Posted by Baconcat on March 31, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Or instead we could just tax the superrich before the revolts start.

http://on.mktw.net/fwszli

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM

@2: you think a government that sues 29,000 petition signers is going to cooperate? You're delusional.

Posted by Baconcat on March 31, 2011 at 4:04 PM

So we can make state law that says that municipalities have to pay for things? How about we make a state law that says that Yakima has to pay for all of the state highways? They're outnumbered, so it must be democratic, right?

Seriously, I wonder if the mayor is brain-damaged at this point. As well as anyone who actually thinks that a municipality could be held liable for any cost overruns on a state-sponsored project.

Posted by jambalaya on March 31, 2011 at 4:07 PM

How long until some doofus says Seattle should take up arms like it's Benghazi?

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on March 31, 2011 at 4:08 PM

You can make any state law you want, but it won't stop the mobs from burning down your mansions.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 4:08 PM

No, they'll use guns for that, Will, you fucking idiot.

Posted by Aaron on March 31, 2011 at 4:14 PM

@8, meet @9.

Posted by Fnarf

on March 31, 2011 at 4:23 PM

try reading the news fucktwat @11.

http://on.mktw.net/fwszli

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Hee hee!

Posted by gloomy gus on March 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

He actually sounds like an intentionally misleading broken record. State law does not say Seattle is responsible for the cost overruns. It says Seattle property owner who will benefit directly from construction of the tunnel will pay cost overruns, so unless you're one of them, you can rest easy. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by ian on March 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Luckily there will be no cost overruns, so no problem.

Posted by Cascadian on March 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM

It says seattle area residents who benefit. Which can be interpreted to mean lots of things. i.e. the pugey sound region.

Posted by beef on March 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM

@16 it basically means the legislators outside of Seattle won't pay for it and will force Seattle taxpayers to pay for it.

Which they could easily do by withholding any passthru taxes collected for Seattle, or other money transfers, which ends up meaning a TAX on Seattle Citizens.

Because you know the Billionaires and Millionaires won't pay it.

Seriously, do I have to explain how the tax collection system works to you? King County collects the property taxes and then passes those on to Seattle - if the State forces them to divert such funds to the State, then the County will do it and Seattle won't have the revenue. It's not rocket science ...

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Why would anyone want a stupid tunnel when you can have a six lane I5 and I405 in both directions?

Only a moron would buy a tunnel instead of a highway.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on March 31, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Not residents, property owners. Here is the clause: “Any costs in excess of $2.8 billion shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.” It is unenforceable, surely, but even if you think it is, it isn't "Seattle" that will pay the cost overruns.

Posted by ian on March 31, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Baconcat, had McGinn actually been working towards resolving the cost overrun issue (as he said he would) rather than trying to kill the tunnel (as he said he wouldn't) I believe that either they would have coopoerated and a deal would have been made or McGinn would have the high road of being able to say he really did try and the State is the one being difficult. With the political capital invested in a real solution he'd be able to spend it doing things like getting his agenda for the city in place.

Instead he employed young urban goons to bitch and whine about how dumb everyone who doesn't agree with him is and now even with almost 30,000 signatures you still have NOTHING to show for this fight other than a bright light of "one term" being shined directly in the mayor's face.

So basically, congratulations on the self defeat. McGinn and his supporters need to go back to the drawing board now before we end up with some right wing reactionary vote douche in there. Your strategies suck ass and are not convincing the voters. Wake the fuck up.

Posted by Solar System on March 31, 2011 at 5:17 PM

So it seems like the conventional wisdom is don't worry about the legislature sticking it to Seattle (or Seattle property owners benefiting from blah, blah, blah) because it's really unenforceable. If true, then why's it in the bill authorizing the project? Is it because the legislature thought they could do it and then found out differently? Fine, why won't they repeal that provision, since it's obviously unenforceable? Is it because it really is enforceable? If so, then you all are lying. Or is it because the legislature put it in there as a political statement, and they really don't give a shit whether it's enforceable or not? If so, then why is it again that I should tell my children to respect the law?

Posted by Don't you think he looks tired? on March 31, 2011 at 5:20 PM

The only property owners in the Seattle area who will benefit from the tunnel are the ~500 people who will pay a toll to use it. So we'll just increase the toll to $60,000 each way to pay for overruns. Problem solved!

Posted by raku on March 31, 2011 at 5:22 PM

@19 renters pay property tax too, ian. You just don't realize that's why your rent was jacked up.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Fine guys, you can spin it however you want, but just stop outright lying like our mayor does by saying SEATTLE is on the hook for overruns.

Posted by ian on March 31, 2011 at 8:38 PM

@21 First of it, it's a tiny clause within a law. They put it in there, I figure, so people in far-flung areas of the state would be a little less pissed-off that this huge chunk of change was coming Seattle's way -- probably why they don't want to repeal it, too. Secondly, have you never heard of a law being thrown out by the courts, for various reasons?

Posted by ian on March 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Ian@24. You have to be being deliberately disingenuous. You simply can't really be ignorant that property owners are the foundational tax base of the whole city. If Seattle's share of the property taxes is diverted to the state it will affect ALL residents of Seattle.

Posted by cracked on March 31, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Take a deep breath. Now read Article XI Section 12 of our State Constitution. There. Now you know why the cost overrun provision is unenforceable. You also now know more law than our lawyer Mayor does, which makes me wonder what the hell he's been up to all these years.

The more interesting question is, where does the Mayor propose to get $1 million out of the general fund to pay for an election?

Posted by kk in seattle on March 31, 2011 at 9:46 PM

If it's unenforceable, then it should be no problem to repeal it. When Gregoire requests legislation to get that done, then I'll believe her. Until then, the Governor is just as full of shit as the mayor.

Posted by TheRain on March 31, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Yeah.... the problem here is that McGinn (thank the black baby jesus) isn't the one writing the law. The state law he's referring to actually says that that those people who "directly benefit" from from the tunnel have to pay for overruns. In theory that could mean those three or four people who have a business that dumps right into the tunnel. In theory it could mean every fucking citizen of this state.

Try again, McGinn/Stranger/Dom.

Posted by dak7e on March 31, 2011 at 11:44 PM

26: I'm not disingenuous at all. You're the one who is making it sound like the law says all Seattle property owners will have to pay for overruns, when it specifically singles out those who benefit from the tunnel. It's pretty meaningless since it doesn't even attempt to explain what benefiting from the tunnel even means, but I would think any reasonable person would interpret that as someone who is directly enriched by the construction of a tunnel (or disappearance of the viaduct) because it makes their property more valuable. That wouldn't be a large percentage of the population.

Posted by ian on April 1, 2011 at 12:53 AM