The Seattle City Council’s current plan to stick its fingers in its ears and “la, la, la” away rising calls to answer questions about cost overruns on the deep bore tunnel is, apparently, not going to work.

Today a group of 18 organizations is sending a letter to the council asking members to heed warnings about potential cost overruns on the $4.2 billion project that could fall on Seattle. The language in the letter is fairly tame: “We request that the Council clearly communicate their plans for protecting Seattle residents from the risk of tunnel cost overruns.” But the political message is stark.

Sierra Club, El Centro de la Rasa, Real Change, InterFaith Task Force on Homelessness, and 14 other organizations that have shown political muscle in the last year are banding together to say that the council needs to explain itself. The letter is sent just before today’s first meeting of the governor’s oversight committee, which draws on state, county, and city leaders to commit to finishing the project.

Council President Richard Conlin has insisted, “We do not need more debate at this stage of implementation,” an attempt to scuttle a debate challenge on the issue without explaining how, exactly, the state and city would deal with any cost overruns. City Attorney Pete Holmes has noted that Conlin “does not address the issue of what happens if there is a cost overrun. Saying that the city cannot be made to pay a cost overrun doesn’t address the problem of what we do if there is a cost overrun.”

In its letter (.pdf), the group of organizations writes, “Specifically, we urge you to ensure that the state will take full responsibility for tunnel cost overruns, or to develop clear and transparent policy that indicates exactly how the city will pay for any tunnel cost overruns that might occur should the city be responsible as the Legislature intends.”

If Conlin has an idea of what will happen if costs do exceed the budget—what the governor has promised, where that extra money will come from, an indication that the legislature would remove its cap on contributing to the project—he needs to come out and explain it at Town Hall and on television. Or Tom Rasmussen, the council’s transportation committee chair? Or Sally Bagshaw, who ran for city council because she wanted to see the waterfront improved? Implying “if you knew what we know” or suggesting that “we can cross that bridge when we come to it” won’t cut it with these organizations. This letter demontrates that these groups aren’t about to shut up. The debate is just getting started.

18 replies on “Groups Blast City Council for Scuttling Tunnel Cost Overrun Debate”

  1. Man, they’re lining up to get co-opted by the Mayor on this one. Not that they’re at all wrong to do so, they have to curry his favor since he likes to smash things and the Council loves them already. But, wow.

  3. And let the lawsuits commence …

    Told you it was an ex-tunnel.

    By the way, Joni must be miffed about we in Seattle pushing the Income Tax on the Rich and the Legalize MJ initiatives this year, cause she’s going ballistic in the Suburban Times.

  8. The Council DOES have a plan Dom – it’s simple…start the project, get the tunnel mostly dug, when it becomes indisputable that the project can’t be finished on time and in budget, stop digging. Tell the State they have a huge hold to finish, that Seattle doesn’t have the money to finish it, and call the State’s bluff. What’s the State going to do, not finish digging their hole? This is a brilliant plan. Why would anyone question it?

  9. @8 except the actual construction is done by the state, not the city.

    The only things the city has to do is complete utility relocations, agreed to exits (hah, none downtown) and the Seawall.

    Everything else is built by the State.

  10. Meinert @8, I see you’ve come to the same conclusion I have, although it sounds like you’re a bit less enthusiastic about the Council’s “plan” than I am. Assuming you’re being sarcastic here: This is a brilliant plan. Why would anyone question it?

    I’d been on the side of those people like McGinn who have insisted that the state assume responsibility for cost overruns. But what Pete Holmes had to say in Slog (and also something from Tom Rasmussen in the Times) really assuaged my fears. There’s no way the state can stick the city with the bill. Beyond that, the question of who does get stuck with the bill is far less my concern as a Seattle resident.

    The state is determined to spend our gas tax money building new roads one way or another. Better they spend it on a road that actually has some positive side effects than the sorts of sprawl-inducing exurban freeways they could be spending it on.

  11. The letter raises exactly the right issue. Automobile capacity is not a fundamental need that must be addressed before all others. It’s one of many services a city can choose to invest in — and the costs of a highway mean real sacrifices.

    The City Council has never had the courage to frame the debate that way. The Mayor has tried.

    Demanding that the council at least account for the impacts of this highway project shouldn’t be controversial — we shouldn’t have to make them do it. It shows how far Seattle leadership has steered us from a common sensical approach that council members must keep ducking and dodging every time practical matters are raised.

  13. When confronted by uncertainty in a public works project, contractors add $$$ to the price of their bids.

    If the Council’s current attitude prevails, there will indeed be uncertainty as to who will pay the final costs to finish the project. When WSDOT opens the bids, they will be higher than they would otherwise be. Undoubtedly not a line item labeled “political uncertainty” but rather a ratcheting up of other major cost figures by a certain percentage.

    As if our “leaders” need another reason to resolve this matter NOW.

  14. The letter raises exactly the right point. Automobile capacity is not a fundamental need that takes precedence over all others. It’s one of many services government can choose to invest in. Building a highway means real budget sacrifices in other areas.

    The City Council has never had the courage to frame the debate this way. The mayor has tried. It’s not enough for our leadership to wash their hands and say the state will pay for it because cost overruns and delays will affect us all, directly and indirectly.

    At the very least, the council should address the potential financial impacts and disruption this project could cause — and be forthright about it. That this concept is even controversial — that someone has to force them — shows how far our leadership has steered us from a common sense approach to solving the viaduct issue.

  15. The era of the Enviro-Social-Civil Movement is underway. As these progressive forces start finding common cause on more and more issues, the activists in the participating organizations will gain a broader vision and the public can find inclusion within this diverse people’s movement. This may build into an even bigger and more influential force for positive change. The timid, mainstream, status-quo power structures, however, which include some politicians, businessmen, and exclusionary org’s… they better watch out.

  16. 4.2 billion sounds like a bargain when when you consider that the city of Seattle couldn’t possibly build a monorail for less than 11 billion.

  17. Suppose there are cost overruns and the state refuses to pony up, along with everyone else. A suspended, half done project, with years of lawsuits in process, would put the most pressure on Seattle, simply because we’d be living with the mess.

    These 18 groups are right to back McGinn on this issue. It is time clarity, not passing the buck.

  18. I remember reading Tom Rasmussen make a decent argument a few months ago in the Times about why the state can’t stick Seattle with the bill for cost overruns. And I’d love to see Tom step up now and do what Richard Conlin doesn’t have guts to do. That is, take on the FUD going on now about cost overruns. Like what Dan Savage says in this posts, which exists somewhere in the continuum between stretching the truth and outright falsehood:

    There’s no daylight between Rasmussen and Conlin: Tom, like Richard, wants the city to hurry up and sign a contract that leaves Seattle taxpayers on the hook for any and all cost overruns.

    If guaranteeing that Seattle voters are shielded from even the indirect impacts of tunnel overruns is our true concern, then there are concrete steps the city can take now. But we don’t have to do as Mike O’Brien or Mike McGinn suggest and throw this back in the face of the state legislature.

    I’m no tunnel cheerleader (and I have little respect for most of the tunnel cheerleaders out there), but our two Mikes are becoming transparent in in their attempt to kill the tunnel project under the guise of protecting Seattle taxpayers.

    Sadly, The Stranger is letting them off the hook at the same time it’s trying to hold Richard Conlin et al accountable.

Comments are closed.