So, did Mayor Mike McGinn really “flip flop” yesterday, when, as expected, he vetoed the City Council’s tunnel ordinance? Um… I don’t think so.
Yes, as the pro-tunnel video above points out, McGinn did say that if elected, “it will be my job to uphold and execute” any tunnel agreement, but… well… there isn’t any tunnel agreement, at least not yet. The council’s tunnel ordinance is actually part of the process of establishing an agreement, as is the mayor’s signature or veto.
Furthermore, it’s hard to accuse Mayor McGinn of standing in the way of a tunnel agreement, when the council passed its ordinance by a veto-proof 8-1 margin. If anything, the mayor’s long-expected, unsurprising veto is little more than a symbolic gesture… and one completely consistent with the unwavering, anti-tunnel stance McGinn has enunciated since before he declared his candidacy.
What McGinn promised to do was uphold and execute a legally binding tunnel agreement—an agreement that, despite the mayor’s resolute opposition, I’m pretty damn sure we’ll eventually get—and if he ultimately fails to do that, well then, that would be a “flip flop.” But this, not so much.
In fact, of all the harsh words I’ve seen flung at the mayor, “flip flopper” is probably the least applicable. “Stubborn”…? Sure. “Hard headed,” “cantankerous,” and “inflexible”…? Yeah, those work. An “obdurate, pigheaded, car-hating hippie…” not totally unsupported by the facts. There’s even a case to be made that, as mayor, McGinn has thus far been a bit of “flop.”
But for now, I don’t see much flip to McGinn’s flop.
And somehow Mallahan was at 44% to McGinn’s 36% and yet still lost. Huh. I wonder how that happened. Maybe in the end those undecided voters looked at what McGinn had said about the tunnel and decided to go with him based on that?
FWIW, I’m not a tunnel supporter and I have concerns about it, but getting consensus and actually moving forward on anything in this city is hellish and the viaduct needs to come down and be replaced by something. From my perspective, all of the options have risks attached to them – not the same risks, but risks just the same.
The city has decided on the tunnel and gotten nearly all the various power players in the state to support it (albeit with caveats like the overrun provision). It’s moving forward. I’m tired of the do nothingness, I support moving forward, even if it’s not the perfect option. But I also think there IS NO PERFECT OPTION. When it comes the tunnel, I’m playing the pragmatist, in the exact same way I did when I voted for Kerry.
The problem is this, Donolectic: screaming “liar” and “flip-flop” and “just build it” ignores a pretty justified opposition by the Mayor that’s balanced by his right as an independent arm of City Government (which is why saying “the city has decided” is flawed) and a general disquiet with the project itself.
For example, various polls actually support McGinn in his opposition to moving forward at present without certain resolutions — and these polls support a referendum on the matter.
Many voters actually like the tunnel — neck and neck with opposition, in fact — and more than likely many of them do so because it’s “moving forward”, but the way it’s being administered is apparently fairly unpopular. From the looks of things, voters are willing to kill a plan that does not conform to the promises of “no overruns”.
It’s unsurprising that McGinn would return to his initial opposition, given these circumstances.
That being said, would a second normal session elapsing without removal of 2009’s cost overrun provision being removed be construed as lying on the part of legislators who have claimed they will work to get it removed? Would the lack of any legislation to that effect mean that those who promised to have it removed this session are liars? And those that promised removal last session?
Can we use this hardball rhetoric to suggest that any legislator that proposed to remove the language but has not (and ultimately does not) is a liar?
I can disagree with your calling him a liar just as readily as you can disagree with my defense. Suggesting otherwise is hilariously wrongheaded.
@55: Really? You can’t see the difference between a politician who has a change of heart, and a politician who intentionally deceives voters in order to get elected?
Well, I can, and I call the latter a “fucking liar”.
@56: The difference lies entirely between your ears.
@57 – Sorry Bacon, gotta agree with seandr on this one.
About the tunnel, proof that democracy is a slogan and that big money has this country mesmerized. What we need to do is create resource pools for small business funding and development. This will allow a diverse and vibrant, sustainable economic system that can turn from the archaic, exploitative, industrial corporate model that dictates ‘decisions’ based on profits over all else.
Global bullies need reprimands not subsidized encouragement.
PS who makes the $ on the tunnel? When things don’t make sense I look to find out who or what really benefis. Bingo!
Whoa, the governing agents in the USA are controlled by subsidized big business interests…hence the subsidies. Like, who passed the laws and regulations that abetted the process?
The tunnel is a question of who or what really benefits. Follow the money. If you consider that tax payers have said no to the tunnel several times, you might ask yourselves -democracy, where?
Until we create economic diversity via resource pooling for funds and development that will free us from the post industrial exploit model, we enable the interests of the few to override the benefit of the majority. Today’s knowledge points to a different more sustainable course.
Social equity and fair play worked in grade school…so why let the bullies run amuck now?
Baconcat – I wasn’t comparing mcginn’s reversal to rape. I was comparing goldy’s attempt to convince us McGinn didn’t flop flop to calling a robbery-rape a “date.” see, I was really really trying to dramatize how preposterously indefensible I feel goldy’s position is.
@61: that’s not any better.
@55, what various polls show is that Seattle can’t make up it’s collective mind and there is no option that a majority of people support. Ten years of the Seattle Way of endless talk, polls, community forums, hot air and bullshit has failed.
Since the Nisqually Earthquake we’ve gone through three mayors, five councils and two governors. We elected them to lead and make decisions. Some of those ain’t going to be popular and may be in opposition to popular support – particularly when no option does have majority support.
So go ahead and hold initiatives and references denying support. In the end it just delays any decision from ever occurring. What all this obstructionism and denial IS NOT DOING is creating any positive support or consensus around any alternative. It’s been ten years. Enough.
@63: Well how about we tear down the viaduct NOW?
Oh, no, you won’t do that because that’s the worst thing — not because of the potential for traffic snarls, but because it could very well prove the general scientific suggestion that removing something like the AWV could be a non-issue.
We saw it when WSDOT basically made I-5 unusable for days and days in 2007. Why? Because drivers adapt. That would essentially make all this wrangling “I win, you lose” battling over a replacement option moot. This is why nobody wants to actually just shut the thing down, they want their grand plan to come to fruition so they can gloat about it, and no side is immune to this. Gregoire wants her cash-cow tunnel and McGinn wants his green-cred Surface+Transit.
Just removing the damn thing is probably the most revolutionary and most successful plan out there.
And you say “we elected them to make decisions” forgetting that all these arms of government are independent. Did we elect Governor Gregoire and the legislature to slash Basic Health? To sign DOMA into law? Did we elect Rob McKenna to challenge HCR? If I had to guess, I’d say Seattle voters are more inclined to have them do the progressive thing.
So keep screaming “SEATTLE WAY” and pretend that it’s obstruction of good… in reality, it’s an attempt to stave off status quo and bring a more progressive solution to bear.
@64
That alternative was discussed and rejected and was never seriously considered. Keep tilting at windmills.
McGinn is the third mayor since the earthquake. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Since he doesn’t agree with the tunnel, he won’t lead or follow, and promised to get out of the way. What he’s done since that promise is obstruct.
What the “Seattle Way” has shown is that it is always possible to kill, or at delay, solutions with mixed results for better or worse in the end. For me, the tunnel is the progressive solution.
It’ll be great when this fucking thing is dug. While it isn’t my favorite option, I’m tired of Seattle having a third rate infrastructure due to dithering, diddling and voting multiple times.
@65: So…tearing down the viaduct isn’t urgent anymore? Nice flip-flop! Bravo 🙂
@67 tearing down the viaduct has already started, because we have plans in place to replace it. Nice try though.
@68: And what year will that be completed? Note that I said urgent, but don’t let that stop you from your typical … whatever you call what you do when you start typing and don’t know when to stop.
In case you’re bored with your own cluelessness like the rest of the world, remember Gregoire promising a 2012 teardown? Remember shrieks of “we need to tear it down now!!!” in 2007? And, well, since long before that? Were those people lying or did the political landscape simply change? Was it a flip flop or did they simply respond to the current climate? What happened to the urgency that started this mess in the first place? The one where we’re trying to keep people from being crushed?
Is a tunnel worth more than a handful of lives? Please, enlighten us.
Seattle process is not known for its urgency. In any real city it would have been torn down and replaced with in five years, not 15.
It may not be completed by 2012, but at least something is GETTING DONE NOW, instead of obstruction, delay and more talk, cuz that’s all you and the mayor want.
And I suppose the Govn’r could still order it torn down if McGinn keeps dawdling and obstructing. Is that what you’re after?
Ha, ha! Bacon, still at this? Love it! You point out that we didn’t need I-5 when the expansion joints were being repaired, don’t need SR 99, hell, maybe we don’t need any express routes anywhere between Oregon and Canada. And the Mayor is “an independent arm of City Government” but “to scapegoat one person [poor Mike!] over a large base of opposition is dishonest and the highest form of political deception.” Wow! Good work, Sloggers! You’ve topped the Big Lie! Bacon, is someone paying you to write this? (Hint: Leno pays more for the real comedy stuff).