Slog
News & ArtsThursday, April 7, 2011
City City Certifies Tunnel Referendum Has Enough Signatures for Ballot
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Protect Seattle Now, which petitioned for a citizen vote on the proposed deep-bore tunnel, announces today: "Last week the campaign turned in 28,929 signatures, and yesterday the Seattle City Clerk certified 17,329 signatures as valid (16,503 were needed, and the Clerk stopped reviewing signatures after enough were certified)."
Working with Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin, City Attorney Pete Holmes filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court to prevent the measure from going to the ballot. If a judge finds the measure must be voted on—that the measure is referable to voters—Seattle's electorate will be asked to approve or reject contracts with the state on the proposed $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel (which includes $930 million from the city, $300 million from the port of Seattle, and $400 million in tolls paid by drivers who use the tunnel).
“The public response to the signature drive was immediate and overwhelming," Tim Harris, a member of Protect Seattle Now and director or Real Change News, writes in a statement sent this afternoon. "Seattle clearly wants a say on the tunnel, since we're the ones who have to pay the cost overruns. We believe City Council should get out of the way and let democracy occur.”
2
@1 is correct.
Here's a news flash, City Council - you work for the Citizens who Vote, not the non-citizen "stakeholders" who can't Vote in Seattle.
Here's a news flash, City Council - you work for the Citizens who Vote, not the non-citizen "stakeholders" who can't Vote in Seattle.
3
There's just that little matter of The Law standing in the way of voting on this referendum. Like it or not, Pete Holmes has the law on his side.
Referendum proponents should ask their lawyers, in confidence, about that; I'm sure they would come to the same conclusion that Pete did.
Referendum proponents should ask their lawyers, in confidence, about that; I'm sure they would come to the same conclusion that Pete did.
4
Joe, you forgot "piece of shit coward" and--dang, sorry, that's Dan's phrase. Sometimes the sound gets muddled as the zingers fly around here in the echo chamber. My mistake.
5
Protect Seattle Now? What happened to Seattle Citizens Against the Tunnel (SCAT), that was a pefectly acceptable name.
6
@1: So when Tim Eyman proposes an unconstitutional initiative, anyone who opposes it also hates America?
7
@6: offering a legal opinion, are we?
Let's just remember that the Governor pushing this tunnel allowed the arrest of union members and progressives today. And that our legislators that claim we will have transit funding have made it impossible to get by requiring a supermajority.
Let's just remember that the Governor pushing this tunnel allowed the arrest of union members and progressives today. And that our legislators that claim we will have transit funding have made it impossible to get by requiring a supermajority.
9
I just read that Gregoire is IN FAVOR of voting on the Tunnel:
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2006/1…
http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/2006/1…
10
I hope that the Court puts the Tunnel on the ballot but I think that the Tunnel -- to my horror -- will win.
• Anti-tunnel people think that the vote -- if it happens -- will be about the tunnel — "YES" or "NO" e.g. Eli Sanders was articulate on that issue on KUOW recently.
• But pro-tunnel people will frame the issue -- over and over -- "Well what's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
• McGinn has no other alternative than Surface/Transit.
• There is no way that a majority of the people of Seattle will (in effect) vote for Surface/Transit. They've said pretty convincingly in vote and polls.
• So as it is now, pro-tunnel wins.
• That would be a disaster.
• McGinn should create room for discussion of a long-term plan along the lines of "Repair Now and Prepare (to eventually tear down the Viaduct.)"
Realistically, even in the best of circumstances, suppose we had a 70% agreement on Surface/Transit and we were all set to do it. Would we really just tear it down? Don't you think that Preparation would take a number of years? You have to create a fairly complex new infrastructure and that itself will be both complex and contentious. So Surface/Transit means a fairly extensive period and probably would require more Repair.
But right now, anti-tunnel forces focus on Surface/Transit as an immediate solution. And it's my surmise, the voters will scorn it and out of frustration -- "How else can you solve the emergency?" -- vote for the Tunnel. And that would be tragic but Surface/Transit has set it up so fat that way by refusing to consider the Repair.
So now, Cary Moon and Erica Barnett & Co -- you have boxed yourselves in.
• Anti-tunnel people think that the vote -- if it happens -- will be about the tunnel — "YES" or "NO" e.g. Eli Sanders was articulate on that issue on KUOW recently.
• But pro-tunnel people will frame the issue -- over and over -- "Well what's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
• McGinn has no other alternative than Surface/Transit.
• There is no way that a majority of the people of Seattle will (in effect) vote for Surface/Transit. They've said pretty convincingly in vote and polls.
• So as it is now, pro-tunnel wins.
• That would be a disaster.
• McGinn should create room for discussion of a long-term plan along the lines of "Repair Now and Prepare (to eventually tear down the Viaduct.)"
Realistically, even in the best of circumstances, suppose we had a 70% agreement on Surface/Transit and we were all set to do it. Would we really just tear it down? Don't you think that Preparation would take a number of years? You have to create a fairly complex new infrastructure and that itself will be both complex and contentious. So Surface/Transit means a fairly extensive period and probably would require more Repair.
But right now, anti-tunnel forces focus on Surface/Transit as an immediate solution. And it's my surmise, the voters will scorn it and out of frustration -- "How else can you solve the emergency?" -- vote for the Tunnel. And that would be tragic but Surface/Transit has set it up so fat that way by refusing to consider the Repair.
So now, Cary Moon and Erica Barnett & Co -- you have boxed yourselves in.
11
@10 not really.
A precondition to Surface Plus Transit and Rebuilt Viaduct is the removal of the existing Viaduct and the addition of transit to handle the removal.
You could literally have three votes - one a Governator "FU Seattle!" Tunnel-of-Debt vs Rebuilt-Viaduct - followed by two votes.
What comes out at the end of the three EIS stages and three EPA hearings may be completely different.
But once the Tunnel-of-Doom is dead, the discussion shifts.
A precondition to Surface Plus Transit and Rebuilt Viaduct is the removal of the existing Viaduct and the addition of transit to handle the removal.
You could literally have three votes - one a Governator "FU Seattle!" Tunnel-of-Debt vs Rebuilt-Viaduct - followed by two votes.
What comes out at the end of the three EIS stages and three EPA hearings may be completely different.
But once the Tunnel-of-Doom is dead, the discussion shifts.
12
Will,
The problem is that IF there is a vote, then pro-Tunnel will keep asking "What's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
Pro-Tunnel will try to frame the debate as -- and I think they'll do it successfully -- "What's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
Right now, there is no alternative in the public conversation to the Tunnel except S/T. Anti-tunnel is boxed in. Very sad.
So, and of course it's my surmise, Seattle will vote against S/T.
The solution of course is Repair & Prepare — but S/T folks have so far been fervently against the Repair and I don't think S/T folks can step down.
The problem is that IF there is a vote, then pro-Tunnel will keep asking "What's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
Pro-Tunnel will try to frame the debate as -- and I think they'll do it successfully -- "What's the alternative to the Tunnel?"
Right now, there is no alternative in the public conversation to the Tunnel except S/T. Anti-tunnel is boxed in. Very sad.
So, and of course it's my surmise, Seattle will vote against S/T.
The solution of course is Repair & Prepare — but S/T folks have so far been fervently against the Repair and I don't think S/T folks can step down.
13
@10: Repair/rebuild/retrofit in any case requires extensive closure, you would have a surface solution for years. That's part of the reason some repair/rebuild/retrofit advocates were willing to join forces with the surface side. There's a recognition that there is a high potential that even just mitigation and transit increases would work while the viaduct is closed.
The crux of boosterism behind the tunnel plan is the suggestion that surface/transit can't and won't work in any conceivable fashion, even when in aggregate we find that surface options often do work in exactly the fashion proposed.
And let's not forget that downtown, where the biggest effects will be felt, has a 60% alt transportation share. That's walking, biking and riding.
I think the fear of economic collapse -- job-killing environmental policies, as they frame it -- is overblown by a great deal.
The crux of boosterism behind the tunnel plan is the suggestion that surface/transit can't and won't work in any conceivable fashion, even when in aggregate we find that surface options often do work in exactly the fashion proposed.
And let's not forget that downtown, where the biggest effects will be felt, has a 60% alt transportation share. That's walking, biking and riding.
I think the fear of economic collapse -- job-killing environmental policies, as they frame it -- is overblown by a great deal.
14
@12: The alternative is to manage the traffic we have instead of trying to find new and not-so-innovative ways to accommodate it.
We have thousands of lane miles in this city, we have on-street parking where we don't need it, left-side access on I-5 which causes bottlenecks and many more fixables in our transportation system.
We have thousands of lane miles in this city, we have on-street parking where we don't need it, left-side access on I-5 which causes bottlenecks and many more fixables in our transportation system.
16
@13
What is your source of information that a Repair option would "requires extensive closure?"
Who are you and what is your source?
What is your source of information that a Repair option would "requires extensive closure?"
Who are you and what is your source?
17
Here's what I don't understand. No one can give an example of an industrial area that has torn down its expressway access and survived. There was no industry or port facilities in downtown San Francisco, Portland or New York. Those areas have effectively been converted into parks and boulevards. This leads me to conclude that tunnel opponents envision that for our industrial areas as well, since what happened in other cities will happen here (or that's what I keep hearing). All of the debate revolves around light rail and bicycles. Have any of the tunnel opponents actually visited the Duwamish or Harbor Island or SoDo?
Which leads me to question why tunnel opponents so fervently wish for the deindustrialization of our city. Most cities would give their proverbial left nut to have the industrial family-wage blue collar jobs we have in the area proximate to Highway 99. Why do we want to drive those businesses away by removing their access to markets? (It's pretty easy for them to move.) After all, we're not talking about building new lanes here; we're talking about replacing what is already there. (And please don't pretend that gas taxes can be used for transit--the second I hear that I know I'm listening to someone who doesn't understand how our State Constitution works.)
When cities deindustrialize, they lose their middle class and become home to haves and have-nots. Those who lose their jobs become stranded, as we have seen in most American cities that have deindustrialized. Why would anyone want to repeat that here? Do any of the tunnel opponents have anything to say about this? If not, I can only assume that you don't give a crap about the middle class, presumably because industrial areas, once they are vacated, work pretty well for raves and artists lofts. Well, sorry, I'd rather have family-wage jobs at Ash Grove Cement and Nucor Steel than another Meatpacking District wannabe nightclub. Those industries support good jobs and pay lots of taxes. Nightclubs, not so much. And remember, it's those taxes that fund all the goodies you're always clamoring for--transit, housing, health care and arts funding.
More...
Which leads me to question why tunnel opponents so fervently wish for the deindustrialization of our city. Most cities would give their proverbial left nut to have the industrial family-wage blue collar jobs we have in the area proximate to Highway 99. Why do we want to drive those businesses away by removing their access to markets? (It's pretty easy for them to move.) After all, we're not talking about building new lanes here; we're talking about replacing what is already there. (And please don't pretend that gas taxes can be used for transit--the second I hear that I know I'm listening to someone who doesn't understand how our State Constitution works.)
When cities deindustrialize, they lose their middle class and become home to haves and have-nots. Those who lose their jobs become stranded, as we have seen in most American cities that have deindustrialized. Why would anyone want to repeat that here? Do any of the tunnel opponents have anything to say about this? If not, I can only assume that you don't give a crap about the middle class, presumably because industrial areas, once they are vacated, work pretty well for raves and artists lofts. Well, sorry, I'd rather have family-wage jobs at Ash Grove Cement and Nucor Steel than another Meatpacking District wannabe nightclub. Those industries support good jobs and pay lots of taxes. Nightclubs, not so much. And remember, it's those taxes that fund all the goodies you're always clamoring for--transit, housing, health care and arts funding.
18
@17: You mean the same cement plants that spew toxic waste into downtown air and water? Yeah, let's move those away from the population center. It's a good compromise, in the unlikely event that your prediction comes true. We get a better city, AND the toxic plant shuts down? Sweet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
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
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
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
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS