OK, almost certainly not. But here are some thoughts with a day’s reflection:
First off, I’m somewhat ambivalent about initiatives. There is too much money in them, and they have all sorts of problems, but I’m not ready to do away with them. Still, I’m glad it made the ballot even if it lost. Before McGinn’s election the cost overrun provision being enforced was a given. After his election, most people said it wasn’t enforceable. And during the campaign, both candidates for governor and most of the political establishment said Seattle wasn’t on the hook. So it helped shift the debate on the sticking it to Seattle aspect of the project (in my opinion the worst part, and the thing McGinn ran against throughout his campaign). I suspect we’ll start to hear the establishment push for enforcement of the cost overrun provision again, but at least we had a year and a half, and especially this year, where they had to oppose it.
Second, I didn’t mention the drunk Legislative staffers I got into an argument with (and I’m not going to name names here) in last night’s post. But try to isolate McGinn all you want, he has been a better mayor than Dow has been an executive or Gregoire has been a governor. I’ll take McGinn’s record over Gregoire’s or Dow’s any day of the week and twice on Sunday. While Gregoire and the Democrats in the Legislature are cutting education and social services to the bone and beyond, while King County has had to cut social services and had a hell of a time just getting continued bus service at a much higher cost for riders, McGinn has signed a budget that doesn’t cut social services and has put transit and education improvements on the ballot.
You can say that he was in a better position when he took office; you can say he doesn’t have to deal with Eastern and Southern Washington or Eastern and Southern King County; you can decide how much of that is McGinn and how much is the City Council. That’s all fine, but I’ll take McGinn’s record of human decency, at least potentially better transit, and better education over Gregoire’s Republican budgets and Dow’s 2 zone peak trip costs $3 each way (and one zone trips are expensive too) for the same service.
Third, I hope I’m wrong, but the I-Told-You-Sos are going to be some comfort. When people complain about the worse traffic downtown, or when they wonder where the on and off ramps went, at least I’ll be able to say, “you were warned.” If buildings have to close or the cost overruns are somehow back on Seattle, if the tunnel machine gets stuck, well that’ll be awful and I hope it doesn’t happen, but at least I’ll be able to say something.
In regards to the tunnel: My best guess is that 99’s a state hwy and so the state (that being WSDOT and the Gov. or at least a governor) decided to build a tunnel and have been working towards that goal ever since that decision was made. Could have been a cut and cover, could have been a deep bore, but Seattle was getting a tunnel when 99 wore out. Hell, maybe they decided that back when Dixie was governor. I’m sure it was well before the state ledge. or anyone in Seattle was ever notified. They’re going to keep moving the goal posts until the tunnels done. If that mean the state picks up the overruns then the state picks up the overruns.
You should out the staffer. It’s not like Seattle’s representatives in Olympia are worth a hill of beans anyway.
Look at it this way: excluding the Spokane metro area (because it’s urban/suburban), Eastern Washington has about 8 legislative districts. The Seattle metro area has about 8 legislative districts (I’m doing this off the top of my head). If your 8 can’t beat their 8 you need a new 8.
“Could have been a cut and cover”
That was my choice. IMHO, they blew it with the tunnel decision. No one has ever adaquately explained to me why the tunnel is better than the lid. But there were a lot of reasons why the lid was better than the tunnel.
@1
Also excluding the Spokane area because the third LD is solid D, Timm Ormsby, Andy Billing, and Lisa Brown.
I voted for McGinn and think he’s doing ok, about as good (or bad) as Nickels before him. And I voted for the tunnel, I don’t really agree that it’s the best thing, but it’s just time to do something. I don’t think that McGinn was wrong in trying to protect the taxpayers, I am glad he tried and hope he and the council will be vigilant in overseeing the project. But even after all this, the project has not spent one extra dollar or been delayed one extra day due to McGinn’s concerns.
@2
Well two Democrats and one well intended corporatist who’s hearts in the right place…
@2
I think that’s in the end this is a state project and the state decided what they were going to do and went for it. To hell with the people. We’re WSDOT and we’re in charge of the highways. Never mind that things change over time and that what might have worked well in 1995 might not work so hot in 2020. Traffic volumes are going to fall. Gas taxes are going to fall. Tolling’s never going to pay what the state says it will.
Oops #5’s directed @ #3. Don’t know my name anymore…
@6 I sometimes view WSDOT as a bunch of wanna-be social engineers.
I suspect we’ll start to hear the establishment push for enforcement of the cost overrun provision again, but at least we had a year and a half, and especially this year, where they had to oppose it.
And Carl, I made this point on Twitter earlier today, but the lopsided vote itself will become a justification for sticking Seattle with the overruns. It will be proof that Seattle wants this project and should pay for it themselves.
The debate is over. The tunnel wins. I didn’t have strong feelings, initially. But, at some point you’ve got to pull the trigger. The trigger got pulled with regard to the tunnel, as far as I’m concerned, a couple years ago. Enough, already. McGinn was wrong to continue to push the issue. Endless deliberation serves nobody’s interests, and that was what this latest vote was all about.
@10
The debate was probably over in 1976, WSDOT just didn’t tell anybody…
Living in Everett, I didn’t have a say on the tunnel. But this isn’t a Seattle-only issue, the entire Puget Sound region either uses 99 through Seattle, or benefits from the traffic it takes away from I-5. Like it or not, when we go abroad we don’t say that we are from Shoreline, Burien, or even Everett or Tacoma – we tell people we are from Seattle (or “the Seattle area”).
When visitors come to town, we drive through Seattle to pick them up at SeaTac, we take them to the waterfront and Pike Place Market, and we dine in Seattle restaurants with a view of the ferrys making their way across the Sound. We attend Bumbershoot, Bite of Seattle, the Fourth of July fireworkds display at Gasworks Park, Mariners and Seahawk games, and the other public entertainments held in Seattle.
As I’ve said before, we should all step in to pay for the solution, and hitting Seattle with cost-overrun provisions on a project they don’t control is ridiculous. The State has an interest in moving cars THROUGH Seattle, and in that respect Seattle is just an obsticle to be overcome, like a hill or a lake. Toward that end, the tunnel makes the most sense – it works like an express lane with limited on-off ramps in order to keep traffic moving through the obsticle.
But Seattle’s interest are different – it wants highways feeding into it’s own road system, with the “surface option” being the most “pure” form of that vision. In my personal opinion, that was an unworkable option, because it would create another version of the “Mercer Mess”. There was a reason that they built the viaduct as a by-pass in the first place, and traffic volumes have only increased by several factors since then.
But I never got a vote on this, one way or another, because I’m not in Seattle.
It’s been ten years now since the Nisqually earthquake, and it was clear the viaduct has to be replaced. I’m not convinced the tunnel is the BEST option, but it’s nice to know that we’ve finally got SOME KIND of a decision.
Why does it take a decade or more for us to make a decision regarding transportation in this town? Does it take a bridge collapsing, like the one in Minnesota, to get us to act?
“But try to isolate McGinn all you want, he has been a better mayor than Dow has been an executive or Gregoire has been a governor. ”
—
That’s it. You are now officially over the edge and around the bend, if you can make a statement like that.
Steve, I would have gone for a suspension bridge over that part of seattle……to me a tunnel, especially the current design that has less capacity than the current viaduct, is just plain stupid.
Dear Godmocking Maggot;Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule of worshiping satan and being sodomized by strangers in public toilets to post this hateful message. The Holy Bible tells us that we are actually Blessed by your persecution! Thanks for proving that we’re right.
@14,
So you like Gregoire’s recent budgets? You like how low income riders are going to have to pick up the tab for Metro more than when Dow came into office (I like Dow, and I’m glad he was able to get the car tabs passed, but the situation is still worse for riders than when he came into office)? Seattle is moving forward while King County is holding still and Washington is moving back. How much you want to attribute that to McGinn is up to you, but it’s what’s happened on his watch.
@16
I see someone forgot to take their meds.
First off, I’m somewhat ambivalent about initiatives. There is too much money in them, and they have all sorts of problems, but I’m not ready to do away with them.
Glad to hear our impertinent exercise of democracy has not caused you to dump the entire experiment. Yet. (Our city would be so much better if we voters behaved more responsibly, like doing whatever the crowd at The Scenester and some guys on a snark blog tell us.)
Still, I’m glad it made the ballot even if it lost.
We don’t have enough money for transit, but we can blow a wad on a vote which the state can simply ignore.
On the lighter side, having 60% of the voters approve of the tunnel — even if in just a meaningless advisory capacity — effectively removes any appeal to “the city got shafted” rhetoric. (As if Seattle doesn’t always pay the bills for the state anyway, but don’t get me started.)
You can say that he was in a better position when he took office; you can say he doesn’t have to deal with Eastern and Southern Washington or Eastern and Southern King County; you can decide how much of that is McGinn and how much is the City Council.
You can say apples taste different from oranges, and look different, and grow in different places, but I’m still saying one is better than the other. What-ever.
Third, I hope I’m wrong, but the I-Told-You-Sos are going to be some comfort.
Look, you lost. You forced a nonbinding public vote, lied about how it could have some legal effect, and now can’t face the result. McGinn, whatever his accomplishments, got into office because then-Mayor Nickels lost the top-two primary, and McGinn’s remaining opponent was a corporate drone. This vote officially kills the idea Seattle agreed with McGinn on the tunnel. Thank you.
When people complain about the worse traffic downtown,
Which, assuming it happens, could have many possible causes. Removing freeways can improve traffic.
or when they wonder where the on and off ramps went
I’m pretty sure the voters knew this tunnel was a true bypass of downtown; but hey, call people who disagree with you ignorant if it makes you feel better. That seems to work for the folks at Sound Politics.
If buildings have to close or the cost overruns are somehow back on Seattle, if the tunnel machine gets stuck, well that’ll be awful and I hope it doesn’t happen, but at least I’ll be able to say something.
I’m sure gloating in the face of your neighbors’ problems will endear you to them; just ask Stefan. (Meanwhile, if an unprecedentedly large engineering project happens to encounter problems, please excuse the rest of us if we’re not exactly gobsmacked with surprise.)
While you’re out yelling at the clouds, I’ll be working to make the most of this opportunity to improve our downtown waterfront. You’re invited, but you might not want to listen to us talk about how the tunnel has greatly improved our city. Just sayin’.
@19
The cost of putting this on the ballot and the cost of the tunnel are many orders of magnitude apart. If putting it on the ballot means state gas taxes pay for it instead of general funds from Seattle, it has been a boon. McGinn’s position at the time of the 2009 election was that the state should pay for it, and he got the state to basically agree with that proposition. If Dow or Gregoire could win as well as he lost, maybe they wouldn’t be in the position of making cuts to social services and education.
Also, the polling (not to mention plenty of conversations I’ve had) says that a significant portion of the city doesn’t know the tunnel is a true bypass. In any event, there isn’t a plan for the majority of people who use the Viaduct now (other than hope I-5 takes more downtown trips). This isn’t gloating, it’s the reality. I said, and still say, I hope it doesn’t happen.
As for the waterfront: city council questions go out to the candidates, probably over the weekend, and they’ll include a waterfront question. Personally, all I want is to keep the bike path on Alaskan, but with better drainage, and bring back the streetcar.
The cost of putting this on the ballot and the cost of the tunnel are many orders of magnitude apart.
Apples cost more than oranges!!1!
If putting it on the ballot means state gas taxes pay for it instead of general funds from Seattle, it has been a boon.
…but the lopsided vote itself will become a justification for sticking Seattle with the overruns.
Oh well. From boon to waste, in one small statement of the obvious.
McGinn’s position at the time of the 2009 election was that the state should pay for it, and he got the state to basically agree with that proposition.
To which state-level binding act of law or policy to you refer?
If Dow or Gregoire could win as well as he lost, maybe they wouldn’t be in the position of making cuts to social services and education.
Why, it’s almost like a politician with a more liberal constituency will be more liberal! (And having the Seattle Democrats who “lead” our legislature do the Republicans’ dirty work for them had nothing to do with Gregoire’s “loss”, no sir!)
Also, the polling (not to mention plenty of conversations I’ve had) says that a significant portion of the city doesn’t know the tunnel is a true bypass.
Well, unspecified polls plus unsupported anecdotes proves voters are ignorant! (Oh, and they voted 3-2 against what I wanted. Jerks.)
In any event, there isn’t a plan for the majority of people who use the Viaduct now (other than hope I-5 takes more downtown trips).
Again, it is not possible to remove a freeway and improve traffic. Especially not in the Pacific Northwest!
Personally, all I want is to keep the bike path on Alaskan, but with better drainage, and bring back the streetcar.
Behold the soft bigotry of low expectations. I suggest a true test of your Great Leader will be how well he helps us use this opportunity he opposed to improve our city. I sincerely hope he does not settle for your puny vision!
Nice to see those quote marks around the word lead. Folks in Seattle seem to be waking up to the fact that their folks in Olympia are a joke.
Folks in Seattle seem to be waking up to the fact that their folks in Olympia are a joke.
Thank you; glad to know I’m not alone. If I get half a chance to attend one of my (43rd) District meetings this year, I’m going to demand, in so many words, to know why we should keep our Representatives and Senator in office. As Goldy noted in the link, the Eastern Washington Republicans got every tax dollar they wanted, AND now get to swagger before their hometown crowds (of government-welfare recipients!) about how they imposed fiscal discipline on those irresponsible Seattle libs.
Here’s my legislative program: make every dollar in cuts come from Republican districts whose Representatives and Senators preach “fiscal responsibility”, then unilaterally issue “joint” press conferences praising them for living up to their rhetoric, and then inviting them to give their endorsements to me, at my wetside campaign rallies. Make them eat their lying rhetoric until they choke on it.
The cost of putting this on the ballot and the cost of the tunnel are many orders of magnitude apart.
Apples cost more than oranges!!1!
Right. That was in response to you conflating them in your earlier comment. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
To which state-level binding act of law or policy to you refer?
We have no idea if the cost overrun provision will be binding or not until it goes to court. My point is that because we elected McGinn and had a tunnel question on the ballot, it’s more likely to not go to court, and if it does to go Seattle’s way.
Some time between when Gregoire signed it into law (and she could have line item vetoed that provision if she didn’t mean to enforce it) and now, she’s essentially come out against it. The most logical reason for her and for much of the state’s (and Seattle’s) political establishment to change positions was McGinn’s election and the last few months of convincing people not to sign/ to vote to approve. If you have a better explanation of why the conversation switched to it’s unenforceable, I’d be open to hearing that. If you think it was never going to be enforced, you need to explain why Gregoire signed it.
I do think that much of the state political establishment will go back to thinking it’s enforceable. And I agree with Lee (although, we are different people, so it’s not always a good idea to conflate our views, see Libya, gun control, etc.) that the size of the vote will embolden people to make that argument. But I still think getting Gregoire and both of the candidates for Governor, etc. to say cost overruns are on the state has a real value and that they wouldn’t have without a vote.
Personally, all I want is to keep the bike path on Alaskan, but with better drainage, and bring back the streetcar.
Behold the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Yes, it’s so terrible to prioritize still being able to bike to West Seattle efficiently, and to get around that part of downtown better. Especially as we’re making the freeway less efficient (not, as you say, removing it).
Here’s my legislative program: make every dollar in cuts come from Republican districts whose Representatives and Senators preach “fiscal responsibility”, then unilaterally issue “joint” press conferences praising them for living up to their rhetoric, and then inviting them to give their endorsements to me, at my wetside campaign rallies. Make them eat their lying rhetoric until they choke on it.
That’s further than I’d go, but this is an argument you should be making in a front page post, not the bottom of a week old piece. I mean you have the keys to the front page, so if you think McGinn is getting too much favorable attention, or some issue isn’t getting enough play on HA, you can change that. As someone who supported Hillary Clinton nationally and McGinn locally, I’m happy to have disagreement among lefty bloggers.
Also, quickly, you’re using the second person when talking to me about McGinn, so I just want to make clear: I’m not affiliated with him except for I volunteered for his campaign. If that makes us the same, I’m also the same as Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Mike Cooper, Hillary Clinton, Bill Bradley, several legislative candidates and a few initiatives. I’ve also disagreed with him on a few issues.