Last week, Jim "Are we building a system that no one wants?" Compton voted against Council Member Nick Licata's resolution to broaden the scope of the light-rail review committee. "I'm surprised," Licata says. "All the concerns he raised in his literature are reflected in my resolution."
"I will not join the feeding frenzy," Compton said at the April 3 transportation committee meeting. The committee voted 5-2 to shelve Licata's resolution, favoring an innocuous replacement resolution that pledged allegiance to Sound Transit.
"The city council is taking a hunkering-down mentality that's scared of asking the tough questions," Licata says.
Certainly, Sound Transit's plan--a 21-mile line from the University District to Sea-Tac--merits serious scrutiny. There are nagging doubts about the line's ability to actually get cars off the road ["More Expensive, Less Filling," Josh Feit, Dec 28, 2000]. There's a projected $1.1 billion cost overrun. There will be crippling impacts in neighborhoods like Rainier Valley and Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, a cost-effective alternative--monorail--is gaining speed.
Licata's resolution proposed two things: direct Sound Transit's official light-rail review committee to consider other transit alternatives, routes, and alignments; and direct the committee to seat neighborhood representatives who, he said, had been "frozen out" of the review process.
Judging from Compton's bold talk on the campaign trail ("Why has the current plan angered every neighborhood involved?"), he should have been Licata's main ally. (Heck, he should have founded Sane Transit--the ad hoc coalition that rose up to challenge Sound Transit last summer.) Listen to candidate Compton's campaign brochure: "Jim will... take decisive action by reopening the debate on light rail routes and asking tough questions. Why is the proposed plan already over budget? Why can't riders get to Northgate...? Why are the only underground tunnels in affluent neighborhoods?" And just like Licata's resolution, candidate Compton focused on disaffected neighborhoods. "The Compton approach: Consult with the people who have to pay for it and live with it," his transportation campaign mailer said.
In fact, in an August 1999 letter that Compton sent to a potential campaign supporter he met at a World Trade Center reception, he wrote, "We're mounting an energetic campaign, and striking a nerve telling people that we have to get a Sound Transit System that works, based on real community consensus...."
The public heard a much-changed Compton at last week's council meeting: "Light rail [is] not something the community hasn't had a chance to talk about... and the community knows that there has been a lot of scrutiny.... As we erode the consensus, it's going to be harder to convince the Feds that we mean business, and that we want to go ahead with light rail."
Despite Jim Compton's best efforts to shore up the appearance of consensus on light rail, he hasn't been able to fool anyone--least of all the Feds. An April 4 Department of Transportation report issued a harsh critique of Sound Transit, saying the agency only has until June to retool its controversial alignment, firm up its inflated budget, and build local consensus on the project--or else lose a critical $500 million federal grant. Underscoring this point, the Feds said its 2001-02 budget will not include a $75 million set aside for Sound Transit. Meanwhile, the Feds suspended the $50 million that Sound Transit was counting on this year.
Ironically, it's the fear of losing federal funding that moved Compton to reject Licata. "I now embrace the idea that Sound Transit offers our best hope of setting down the spine of a system," Compton says. "Nick was trying to say that we should go back to the neighborhoods and start all over again. Resolutions like Nick's undermine our chances of pulling together community consensus that would allow a rail system to get built. It's clear that critical mass is unraveling, and I don't think it should. If we lose this $500 million, we lose this city's best chance to get something done."
Compton's reasoning--prioritizing funding the system over the system itself--contradicts all of his campaign rhetoric. Once again, let's rewind to '99: "Do what is right, not what is expedient," Compton cautioned. In 2001, Jim "Get the Answers" Compton is more interested in doing whatever he can to stifle debate, stop community involvement, and shy away from tough questions.
