This is a bit old, but good for the state for rebuilding state route 410. And now that the precedent has been set, I assume there’s a cost overrun provision. I mean to have a cost overrun provision in a county that gets $0.62 back for every dollar it puts into state coffers, but not one that gets back 2.24, well that would be madness. So while I don’t like the idea of cost overrun provisions in general, at least we’re being fair.
What? The state only has the cost overrun provision in the King County project? Well then, I guess I’ll have to vote to Reject Referendum 1.