Yesterday, in admitting my decision to vote for Mike McGinn (I don’t like to do “endorsements” per se), I questioned some of his political judgement, specifically: “I still think his unwavering opposition to the tunnel loses him more votes than it wins him.”
And lo and behold, a few hours later, McGinn backtracks his previously intractable stance against the tunnel, explaining to Publicola:
“I still oppose the tunnel. I think it’s a terrible decision for the city of Seattle. My statement is a simple acknowledgment of how the Democratic process works. The mayor is obligated to follow a 9-0 vote of the council. It’s not an option for the mayor to just ignore legislation.
I’ve consistently been against the tunnel. I remain opposed. Yesterday, I acknowledged that it’s not the mayor’s job to ignore legislation passed by the council.”
Huh. Maybe there’s a political advisor job waiting for me in the McGinn administration?
Don’t get me wrong, I too opposed the tunnel, convinced that a surface/transit option was the best alternative given current financial constraints, but I’m not so opposed to it that I’d be willing to indefinitely block the Viaduct replacement until the crumbling freeway fell down on its own. Yeah, the Big Bore is overly expensive, possibly unnecessary, and as the least engineered and studied of all the proposals, by far the most financially risky option that could have been adopted, but there’s no debating that it enjoys overwhelming support within our political establishment, and, well, sometimes, you just can’t fight City Hall… even from City Hall.
I’ve never doubted McGinn’s ability to throw a hefty monkey wrench into the works, but blocking Seattle from moving on something is a helluva lot easier than pushing it to move in another direction, and I just didn’t see how McGinn was going to get us from here to there. McGinn’s admission that a 9-0 council vote (not to mention the pro-tunnel stance of the governor and the legislature) is not something a mayor is likely to overcome shows a pragmatic side that I wasn’t sure he had coming into this campaign, and should help assuage the concerns of some who feared a vote for McGinn would be a vote for gridlock, both figuratively and literally. Though considering the establishment support Joe Mallahan has garnered, it may be too late.
We’re going to build the tunnel, regardless of who’s in the mayor’s office, but with the question of cost overruns still on the table, I’m a lot more comfortable having McGinn defending the interests of Seattle taxpayers than Mallahan.
My endorsement caused McGinn to change his mind. My influence was decisive. Alas, I have no influence on Frank, however.
Goldy–
Do you realize if the KLOWNS in KLOWNville had Retrofit the existing structure 5-6 years ago, it would be done and mostly paid for??
Sheesh…you KLOWNS mistake motion for action at every turn. More studies…more consultants.
You would have minimally disrupted businesses.
But you all HATE business…I know.
They are your mealticket…that’s it.
Shameful.
Thank you Goldy for the thoughtful analysis. This is two days in a row that I find myself agreeing with you. Hmmm.
Actually Goldy, I don’t think we are going to build the tunnel. The financing plan is a house of cards and with only 1% of the engineering done it is almost certain it will cost more than currently estimated even before a single shovel of dirt moves.
If I-1033 passes expect an epic fight over who is going to pay for the cost differences.
The problem I have with Mallahan is he seems inclined to try to move this turkey along even if he has to close parks and libraries in order to pay for it.
SR99 carries a third of Seattle’s north-south through traffic. Eliminating this route (or encumbering it with stoplights, crosswalks, and cross traffic) just isn’t a feasible option. So, it came down to a choice between building another viaduct or springing for another billion bucks or so for a tunnel that may or may not work (it could turn out to be a huge stormwater conduit). I just hope they plan to get the extra money from people who have money and can afford to pay for it, but you and I both know that’s not how taxes work around here. I’m for taking it out of the city council’s pay.
@2
A retrofit just isn’t practical. The current structure is in bad enough shape a retrofit wouldn’t last very long before serious work was needed again not to mention a retrofit would be expensive.
@2 Do fucking idiots like you realize the viaduct is already past its design life; that retrofitting won’t fix its sinking foundations; that retrofitting would cost as much as a new viaduct; that ENGINEERS (i.e. people who know what they’re talking about) concluded retro isn’t feasible?
Klynikal, you should stick to topics you know something about, e.g. fucking livestock.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@5
Actually the tunnel will only be handling 20k-40k of the current trips assuming tolling doesn’t result in elimination of trips or diverting them elsewhere. In any case 99 is less than 1/3 of the current N/S trips, mostly it is a big on and off ramp to downtown for the West half of Seattle.
@8 You don’t expect me to fuck humans, do you? I don’t want my kids to be born stupid like you.
@2 LOL
Everyone is correct. Your “belief” in a retro fit is cute, but no more realistic than just asking Jesus to fix it magically. It’s can’t be done. Engineers have looked at it.
YES we can put huge steal beams around the thing and hold it vertical for another few years, but there’s nothing they can do about the sinking pilings (which IS the biggest danger) without tearing it out and rebuilding (new viaduct).
Try and get a grip on reality. It really makes life easier.
@9 “mostly it is a big on and off ramp to downtown for the West half of Seattle”
I don’t think I agree with that.
@12
That’s what the traffic studies say. Most trips enter or exit the viaduct downtown.
Huh, and here I thought you might acknowledge that this proves McGinn is just another unprincipled politician, willing to do or say anything in order to get elected.
For many of his supporters, his opposition to the tunnel is what drew them in early in the primary. Does this mean he’ll also just as easily back away from all of the lofty ideas he’s proposed? This was only pragmatic in that he saw what everyone else did – he was losing potential voters by being against the tunnel, and he hopes this will attract more than he loses.
Judging by the various comment threads I’m reading on local politics sites, it’s working. His supporters are bending over backwards to justify his actions, while at least a few undecided voters say that this announcement clinched their vote. He’s slimy & untrustworthy, but it may get him the single term he covets.
Dear media douche bags, McGinn admits that Mallahan was right, and that he was wrong. It really is that fucking simple, Goldy.
Mallahan observed correctly the situation for what it is, McGinn did not. You, Publcola, and the Strangler, are working pretty fucking hard to overlook McGinn’s tunnel, and take over the school district, positions.
Hey, maybe he is just fucking wrong, ever though of that?
When the waters rise from the melting of the polar ice, the tunnel will be an expensive underground diving attraction unless we build a massive seawall. Maybe we should save the money for the seawall unless global warming (climate disruption) is a figment of my imagination.
I am amazed that McGinn supporters are so apologetic over his indecisiveness. Uncanny.
@17
McGinn could endorse Mallahan and they still would not matter. The kool-aid being used as bongwater doesn’t help.
I endorsed both for the primary, and McGinn lost me about three weeks ago. It really started when it became clear by the published city council agendas that they would commit the city to the tunnel. McGinn kept up this absurd narrative, untilhe hit the ceiling.
Where are the tunnel opponents going to go? Nowhere, and he knows it. He says he accepts the council decision, then is quoted in Publicola giving the terms that he would use to kill the project.
http://manywordsforrain.blogsp.....n-for.html
Shouldn’t we be asking from time to time,
“where is the environmental impact study and why has the Council entered into this agreement without it?”
@19
More to the point why is WSDOT soliciting bids for building the tunnel without a complete EIS?