News May 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Mayor McGinn Vows to Veto Any Bill That Puts City on the Hook for Tunnel Cost Overruns

Dominic Holden
Back to article

Comments

1
Yea for McGinn.

There can be no principled stand here that disagrees with the Mayor's position. Hell, even when the tunnel agreement was announced, a big point was made that the City was walled off from cost overruns; both Nickles and Gregoire, on Jan. 13, 2009, felt it so important that they made it one of the key talking points of the announcement press conference.
Timothy on May 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM Report this
2
Can't disagree without being unprincipled. Okay. Got it. Ipso fact presto hey.
gloomy gus on May 5, 2010 at 4:26 PM Report this
3
Fuck. "Facto". I need to retire from Slog.
gloomy gus on May 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM Report this
4
OK Gloomy…give me your principled stand as to why City Residents should be on-the-hook for cost overruns on a State-owned project? If possible, please base your principled view on precedent.
Timothy on May 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM Report this
5
Do you have $5,000 sitting around?

I sure don't - other than some money accumulating for the MJ-imprisoning King County taxes I have to pay, or tuition.

That's what $1 BILLION to $3 BILLION in cost overruns means.

Just. Say. No.
Will in Seattle on May 5, 2010 at 4:43 PM Report this
6
…and let's be clear here; this project would set precedent on future projects; and, given the love-affair that the State has with Seattle, I can see them foisting all manner of costs onto the City going forward if we swallow this time.
Timothy on May 5, 2010 at 4:44 PM Report this
7
Sorry, Timothy, I've retired based on my typo and your certainty.
gloomy gus on May 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM Report this
8
Given the fiscal situation going forward, only some sort of a polyanna nut would trust the state not to stick Seattle with a cost overrun under the current legislation.

McGinn is absolutely right to force this issue now. Unless the cost overruns sit with the state (which they should given that this is a state highway) the tunnel will be remembered as the mistake that bankrupted Seattle for a generation.
gregSea on May 5, 2010 at 5:17 PM Report this
9
McGinn is already perilously close to being the best Mayor of Seattle evah.
Pol Pot on May 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM Report this
10
Translation: McGinn breaks campaign promise.

Just weeks before the election, McGinn changed his position and promised that he would not stop the tunnel.

Mayoral Candidate Mike McGinn Says He Won't Stop the Tunnel
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/mcgin…

He won numerous votes because of this promise (including mine).

Now he's trying to stop the tunnel. Nothing has changed. He's just flip-flopped again on his position. He has no credibility in my book.
Xyzzy on May 5, 2010 at 11:36 PM Report this
11
McGinn is a posturing douchebag. If Seattle wants the Legislature to exempt it from cost overruns, there's a simple solution: Build a new Viaduct.

It's a state highway, do you people get it? You're NOT going to bring traffic to a screeching halt, except in the wet dreams of Cary Moon, Mike McGinn, Dan Bertolet, Alex Steffen, and the rest of the car-hating greenies who populate these comment threads.

The traffic is going to roll whether you like it or not. If you want your precious view of the waterfront so much, and if it's so important to you to call yourselves a "world-class city," then you can bloody well pay for it. Either that or you get a new Viaduct, paid for by the rest of the state, no cost overruns.
on May 6, 2010 at 7:16 AM Report this
12
Hey Xyzzy…did you actually read the article you posted? Because you exhibit a whole lot of bluster on a point in which, quite simply put, you are wrong.

To wit, here's a quote from the article YOU linked:

So McGinn won't be lying down in front of the tunnel-boring machine when construction starts. But he will push the legislature to undo the vague language that forces "property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep-bore tunnel" to pay cost overruns, he says. "I'm going to keep raising the issue of how are we going to pay for cost overruns and how are we going to pay for this in a way that fits our budget," he said. "If we don't have a good answer to those, we may find that the council and the legislature are going to have to revisit that decision."
Timothy on May 6, 2010 at 1:11 PM Report this

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
Posted by (your name here)

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

More In News

Prosecutors File No Charges Against Pro-Palestine Protesters
Texas Tried to Get Seattle Children’s Hospital Health Records on Trans Patients
Big Business’ Plans to Put 30 New Eyes on Downtown Streets Raise Data Privacy Concerns
Advocates for Ceasefire in Gaza Shutdown I-5 North for Five Hours
University of Washington Students Bemoan Choices for President, Contemplate Not Voting
The Stranger’s 2024 Bill Tracker

Editors' Picks

Stop Doomscrolling for Three Minutes and Watch the New Mudhoney Video
Why Seattle Doesn't Give a Fuck About Pedestrians
Man Loses Nearly Half His Body Weight in King County Jail Custody
King County's Housing Crisis Limits Its Efforts to Reduce Crime
Going Off-Leash with Seattle's Magnuson Park Dog Walkers
How Portland Became Seattle Is Dying
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134