I'd say it means citizens don't want Conlin writing bad checks we don't have the money for.

I think the coalition initiative is a great way for Real Change and UA-PAC to cement the loyalty of the mayor, who hadn't exactly championed their interests before he called on them to win the race. It's not that he doesn't necessarily care deeply, but this PR favor will help keep them close to his heart. Real Change in particular has deserved a break like this for a long time.

And as for the SCAT initiative, at least it keeps the Magnolia build-a-new-viaduct crowd busy.

@Will in Seattle

Option #1 will cost billions
Option #2 will cost billions
Option #3 will er wait, there is no 3rd option.

No matter what way you slice it, its going to cost us money you say we dont have.

A silly initiative from a silly group of people.

@3 indeed, much ado about nothing. NASA, we are honing in on nothing.

Seattle Thieves have finally bared their fangs.

The Tunnel is exposed as a way for urbists to rape the countryside and force state citizens to be taxed for a boondoggle.

Every suburbanite, farmer, business person and homemaker should take up their pike and come swinging at Oly if even one dollar is stolen from our wallets.

People should read the full text. It provides a lot of insight into the mindset of the the Anti-tunnel crowd.

A few things to think about.

If cost over runs are so evil why not scrutinize the whole budget and every item in it instead of a just one project?

If the Mayor and City Council are to use all of their "powers" and be held accountable why create a separate commission?

Will the Mayor and Council really agree on the 5 commissioners?

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure there are specific legalities to the terms of "Policy" and "Ordinance" . They are not interchangable or the same difference.

Is this initiative referring to the 520 bridge replacement project? It doesn't say.

Total Waste of Time. Mostly sad for Real Change which is way off mission with this.

"... the State shall be solely responsible for all costs, including cost overruns, of certain State transportation projects." But the City of Seattle has already agreed to pick up certain project costs such as utility relocation. Is the intent here to undo that agreement, to force the state to pick up the project's costs of relocating utility lines?

On the whole, this reads like so much mush. It's a feel good measure designed to keep up appearances, that we're fighting the good fight. Sigh.

@9 it's written to be general and not specific.

On purpose.

@13 yes, but legality is what matters. And that's what scares the Powers That Be, and why they'll do anything to hide the truth from the Citizen Taxpayers of Seattle.