Comments

1
whatevs! state senator person!!
FYI, Joe's not on the hook, his endorsement by Africans proves He's totally off the hook!

bitch pleaz
2

The Rotton Urbs can no longer tax the overburdened Sub and Exurbs and Townships.

This is the Quiet Revolution.

The Seattle House of Lords can no longer impose egregious taxation on the Commoners for their Vain and Odd Projecks!

3
Please tell me the good Senator didn't actually SAY "all of the sudden".
4
So the point is???

One badly schooled State Senator - every legal beagle I know says the stte can't, repeat can't enforce the supposed agreement.

How stupid is this story. Conjecture in the face of fact. And your boy is sinking.

After the campaign, Mc Ginn will tell the truth. He is a half bright attorney.
5
Jesus, figure it out, both the author and @4.
The amendment specifying just how Seattle would have to come up with the money, etc. might not be legal.
But subsequent transpo budgets are completely different. Any legislator (or all of them) can put their foot down and refuse to vote for anything at any time. Which is all Kastama is saying he would do.
Civics class adjourned.
6
Oh Christ - I thought he was trying to make sense. State road, state money.

Dangerous state road, must come down.

All that = state pays from its deep pockets, ie. gas tax gushing every day.

Where does this fool live, his district deserves bettr. On, he is NOT the chair of the committee, just member.

A voice in wind while sitting in the outhouse on a chilly Oct. shit taking ...

Seattle can't legally pay the states bills. Watch for that lawsuit from taxpayers here in the Queen City. We will roll, but it is in the bed of Mr. Right, not on the demand of Olympia nut cases who got elected somewhere in provinces.

And the Stranger is making something of this, shit guys, get some truth once a week.
7
NEXT - in the Stranger. Tell us how a Federal Judges can't over rule state laws. Those about elections, money, petitions, reporting donations - all the issues stacking up of late, now sitting in the laps of the Federal Judical Branch ... en banc.

Waiting for that one.

Christ, what do you think? You do civics from memory of the 5th grade.
8
forget the legalities.

the point is the state wants to put cost overruns on Seattle. even if the current provision isn't legal, which seems to be roundly agreed upon, there is still the fact that there will need to be some sort of divying up of responsibilities of cost overruns. now, bringing this to the current election, i think i heard mallahan say something on wednesday about how he'd be A-OK having all of seattle's voters pay for cost overruns--on a project that isn't managed by seattle nor built by seattle . sounds like if joe gets in, we don't have an advocate, we have a sycophant.
9
Explain to me why Seattle should pay for overruns on a road whose main purpose is for people to drive *through* the city?
10
@9 Because they drink lattes there. Duh!
11
Simac @ 9 asks:

"Explain to me why Seattle should pay for overruns on a road whose main purpose is for people to drive *through* the city? "

There are two main reasons why. But you won't like hearing them.

(1) Because it's a state highway. What part of that do people still refuse to get? WSDOT's original plan had no cost overruns. It had the state paying the bills except for what the Port of Seattle would pay, and what Seattle would have paid anyway for relocating city utilities, etc.

But that wasn't good enough for the "New Urbanist" cult because it was -- wait for it -- another elevated highway. NOOOO! BAAAADDDD! EEEEWWWW!

The Legislature is NOT going to allow a "surface option," so give it up. And if you insist on a tunnel, they will find a way to stick it to you for the next 50 years, if that's what it takes. You might not like it, but their constituents do.

And why is that, you ask? I'm so glad you DID ask.

(2) It's because elections have consequences. Did anyone think they didn't? The 2007 RTID measure would have funded the Cross-Base Highway and would have connected Tacoma to Sea-Tac Airport with light rail. Both of those projects would have provided thousands of family-wage union jobs in Jim Kastama's District.

Mike McGinn and his supporters brag -- BRAG! -- about how they killed that one, and about how it was a GOOD thing, because Seattle got its light rail anyway the following year, and SEE, WE were RIGHT!

Yeah, they were "right" for what THEY wanted and what THEY didn't want, and I voted for the 2008 light rail package right along with everyone else who did, and I'm glad that measure passed.

But Pierce County got screwed in the 2007 vote, and trust me, they haven't forgotten. Pierce County legislators form a solid bloc in Olympia, and they WILL look out for their constituents at Seattle's expense if those constituents think "Seattle" is screwing them over or seeks to profit at their expense.

I know Jim Kastama pretty well. He is one of the smartest, wonkiest, most honest politicians in Olympia, and on many issues -- not all -- he is as liberal as it gets in that neck of the woods. The BIAW hates his guts and would beat him if they could. But that gets harder to do each go-round. So don't some of you make out like he is some bad guy or something.

Jim is first and foremost for J-O-B-S in his District, and his constituents will not want to shoulder ONE NICKEL for any cost overruns on any gold-plated tunnel. If you don't like that, they will reason, then build another god damn Viaduct and STFU! They don't care if YOU don't like looking at it, and why should they, after "you" killed their light rail to the airport?

Is sticking Seattle with cost overruns constitutional? How the hell do I know? It might be, and it might not be. But any claim to know absolutely one way or the other is just faith-based crap. Some people might be willing to roll the dice and find out. Just remember, they're playing with YOUR money.

So I hope this explains things somewhat. Seattle had better deal, because whether some of you like it or not, Olympia is holding the cards, and will be for a good long time.

12
Good analysis @11, but I would say that Seattle DOES still hold one or two playable cards, namely, that the state needs Seattle voters to be willing participants in the funding package. I they were to decide for example to withhold their portion unless the state deletes the cost overrun provision, where does that leave the Dept. of Transportation? At that point unless the state was willing to pony up for the full amount (minus the Port's contribution) - which BTW, they haven't even come close to doing, since there's still a significant funding gap - then realistically, how would the thing get built?
13
The Slog needs to get more of a clue; the provision IS illegal and thus it CANNOT be enforced, and no, they can't come up with another way to make it legal. That said, what this means is:

we are gridlocked because they want Seattle to pay overuns, and they can't make us, or in trying, they buy into 12 years of litigation (can you spell WPPS?) making the bonds unsaleable at the outset, messing with the STate's credit, etc. etc.

IOW, this DBT thing is a freaking mess, not a "done deal" -- and McGinn doesn't need to do a damn thing to sotp it, it will sag like a heavy load, then implode all on its own.

Which in turn means that the idiots promising to get us "moving forward" because they are "efficient busines managers who know who tto drive efficiencies" don't know what the fuck all they're talking about, and MCGinn is the one who's right on this issue, which is also, in this case, the efficient and competent and good-management position.

IT's very inefficient to build DBTs on illegal laws and political coalitions that have internal contradictions; a shell game is not efficient.

There, now do you get it?
14
And Slog, I 695 weas unconstitutional for other reasons having to do with the mannr of its passage whereas the thing that makes imposing cost overruns on city residents alone can't be cured thru the legislature enacting the the same thing. Please, get a clue about which you are talking. SOME initiatives and laws are unconstitutional because they have two subjects or other PROCEDURAL aspects, OTHER initiatives and laws are ALWAYS unconstitutional.
15
If WSDOT and the contractor cannot manage the tunnel construction contract in such manner as to keep costs within budget, where on earth is the precedent for foisting the overrun costs onto an unwilling (and contractually uninvolved) third party?

Where has this been done before, Senator; where?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.