I agree with the Seattle Times editorial board: “It’s time to end the pingpong match over the viaduct tunnel project.”
It’s much too dangerous to play a pingpong match over or under the earthquake damaged Alaska Way Viaduct. And who the hell schedules a sporting event in the middle of a freeway? What were the organizers thinking?
But once I got past that headline, the Times editors lost me:
To outsiders looking in, Seattle leaders have nothing better to do than play political pingpong on the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Oh. Political pingpong. I get it now. It was a metaphor.
But perhaps I was just distracted by the ed board’s mysterious claim of psychic powers:
State lawmakers approved the project, the governor favors it and the region — save for one activist mayor — considers the matter settled.
Hear that? Except for Mayor Mike McGinn, the entire region favors the Big Bore tunnel, even me! Wow. The Times must know me better than I do. Amazing.
Okay, all snark aside, there is a germ of an idea in the Times editorial that could be promoted to help settle this dispute — assuming the Times is at least as interested in ending this pingpong match as it is in flinging the paddles at the Mayor — and it has to do with the controversial cost overrun provision:
At issue for the mayor is language in state legislation that attempts to lay potential cost overruns on an ill-defined group of Seattle area property owners who benefit from the project. McGinn seeks language in contracts with the state that delay the project until the Legislature changes the legislation.
The Legislature will not reconvene for certain until January and is not inclined to eliminate that verbiage because the governor, city attorney and most of the City Council consider it unenforceable.
[…] It is interesting to note the state legislation attempting to take the unprecedented move of dumping overruns on a city through which one of its roadway passes never mentions the city of Seattle as a corporate entity. That more than suggests it would be difficult to sue the city.
The Times goes on to suggest that if Mayor McGinn won’t sign the contracts, then Seattle City Council president Richard Conlin should sign them instead, despite the fact that it’s not at all clear he has that authority. But as long as the Times is demanding that the Council take the initiative in the ed board’s campaign to embarrass and diminish the Mayor, why not instead use the cost overrun issue to promote unity?
Why not suggest that the Council pass a motion rejecting the cost overrun provision, declaring that it will not authorize city funds to be used for that purpose, and will not authorize any taxes or taxing districts to collect such funds? If the provision is really as illegal and unenforceable as the Times suggests, then why not have the Council back up the Mayor on this issue, and allow our city government to speak with one voice in defense of city taxpayers? I mean, if the provision is as meaningless as the Times suggests, why not move this thing forward by allowing the Mayor to save a little face?
Of course, if Mayor McGinn still refuses to sign the contracts, then he’ll have backed himself into a corner. But he’s not there yet, so the smart political thing to do would be to create a scenario in which everybody can be a winner.
Unfortunately, I’m guessing the Times’ politics are about as smart as its headlines.
It’s all downhill from here for Mr. McGinn. The apex of his political career was election night.
tpn @1,
He hasn’t had a very successful start, but to be fair, I think it’s way too soon to judge McGinn. He’s a smart, well intentioned guy, but it’s tough to learn the job on the job. Give him another year before you write his obituary.
The Times writes, “State lawmakers approved the project, the governor favors it and the region — save for one activist mayor — considers the matter settled.”
I guess they forgot the election where the cities voters voted down the tunnel proposal.
Of course that was just an advisory vote so I guess it doesn’t count.
Also not counting apparently was last year’s mayoral election in which McGinn was elected. One of the reasons why he won was his opposition to the tunnel, which the majority of Seattle voters oppose.
The Times needs to change it’s name and move it’s offices to Bellevue already.
As apposed to an inactive mayor?
Remember these days?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ex14m.html
“Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said the vote appears to definitively shut the door on a tunnel.”
@4 They only like the ones who are activists regarding getting rid of the “death” tax, as they call it.
@1 Since many of Seattle’s voters agree with the mayor on major issues (such as the tunnel, 520 Bridge, extension of light rail etc.) I would not say it is all downhill for him. He has a knack for picking his battles.
Plus, he will soon be pushing a plan to expand sidewalks and bike lanes. If the plan is seen as being successful he will come into the election being the overwhelming favorite. Everyone loves sidewalks.
And remember he just needs to campaign in Seattle, not Bothell, not Bellevue, not Redmond.
I think if the Sond Times is so confident about their stance, they should offer to forswear their special state tax exemptions and for that matter, their entire Allentown property towards overrun costs if in fact they turn out to be wrong. Since there’s no risk, why not?
@2: Okay, fair enough, it’s a deal. I won’t completely write him off as a a player, until July 6, 2011; that is if he doesn’t resign first. I all for OTJT, but one has to catch on quick to pull it off and benefit people. I don’t think he’s catching on.
@2,8
I think a lot of people decided to be opposed to McGinn before he even took office and have just let it roll from there. It’s hard for a mayor, or anyone else, to be successful when you have a large crowd of folks against you ‘just because.’
@9
Continued…
I mean, a handful of powerful folks decided that mayor Nickels should win re-election, (based on what, only God knows…) thew a hissy-fit when he got skunked in the primary, have predicted doom and gloom ever since Nickels lost, and have been doing everything in their power for the doom and gloom to come true ever since. Had Norm Rice or Charlie Royer won that election they would probably be same boat McGinn is in right now.
Goldy,
This morning when you posted this I fired off an email to McGinn’s office to let him know that my Seattle family of tax-paying homeowners stand behind him and appreciate his sticking to his guns on this overrun issue. I’m confused about who Conlin thinks his key constituents are on this because it isn’t anyone in my neighborhood…
@10: When you ARE the mayor, you ARE part of the handful of powerful folks. Trying to be the underdog, when you are objectively in charge looks foolish, and is also ineffective. A “victim” who is in charge becomes part of the problem…a fact that transcends left vs. right.
In all reality, he hasn’t done anything to buck the system, except send press releases and have press conferences. He has less power then he did when he got elected, and his influence is waning to say the least. But I’ll wait patiently for him to complete his Hail Mary pass known as “cost overruns” before I write his politcal obit. 7/6/11.
@12
Good point.
It’s still hard to get anything done with the deck stacked heavily against you.
And again, if the mayor were anyone else, under the same scenario, the results would be about the same.
@13 And again, if the mayor were anyone else, under the same scenario, the results would be about the same
Since there would be no opportunity to actually put it to the test under the current conditions, it’s pure conjecture from your point of view— but not altogether impossible.
only in a place like seattle could they vote in people like nickels and mcmumbles.
you guys deserve what you get…
You seem to have this mayor stuff all figured out. So when Republicans voted for James West as Spokane mayor, who got and deserved exactly what out of that?