Does Conlin Accept McGinn's Debate Challenge?


Weak. Conlin needs to man up. This is what I put on Publicola yesterday about all this...


Unless Richard Conlin has financial interests in the construction of the Seattle tunnel or has--or has been promised--financial campaign support or political support from those that will benefit fiscally from the construction of the tunnel, there is no sane reason for him to support it with the cost overrun provision. None. At all.

Conlin's days in Seattle politically are numbered if he doesn't reverse course. The tunnel, yay or nay--at this point, it's secondary. The cost overruns are a situation only a complete fool would endorse.

If the tunnel is going to be built, it's INEXCUSABLE for a Seattle city official to support the local Seattle taxpayers being on the hook for this. If a state bridge in Yakima went over costs, would we require that Yakima rather than the state pick up costs? Preposterous.

Richard Conlin: unless your goal is to commit career suicide, change course. If the tunnel is meant to be, it's meant to be without you and I getting raped on the legal possibility of cost overruns.

There is going to be a lot--a whole lot--of political bad press for every council member that goes traitor on local Seattle taxpayers come the next election cycle. Unless they want this to be their last term... they need to fight the state on this. Even if it comes down to a lawsuit. Anything.

As for McGinn, that's the tact that needs to be pushed. Every time he talks about anything, he needs to ask the cameras:

"Why does Richard Conlin want to legally expose Seattle residents to state-level cost overruns, that only we'll have to pay?"

Or more simply: "Conlin wants Seattle to pay for the state's tunnel. Why?"

That's your talking point. This cost overrun issue is a critical deal breaker for a LOT of us.
Eh, he could also just ignore him. There is little of substance McGinn can do at this point with the council solidly behind the tunnel and its not like the issues have not been debated to death. No one is really going to change there mind at this point. No reason for Conlin to help give McGinn attention on this. After all its McGinn who wants to keep this in the spotlight and to keep the issue open.

McGinn needs to move on and focus on say light rail, or making the Seattle Center nicer, that whole Sea Wall thing that was a huge deal for him a couple months ago and accept that he lost on this one. If there are big cost overruns he can have a big old "I told you so" moment, but until then its time to do something else.
That is a lame taunt, Gala.

The mayor can't simply call a council member to talk to him? He is expected to come to a public meeting to make comments? That's just stupid.
@2 "There is little of substance McGinn can do at this point with the council solidly behind the tunnel and its not like the issues have not been debated to death."

He could direct Pete Holmes to sue the state over the cost overrun issue.
@4 Pete Holmes is a separately elected official so I am not sure he could do that. He could ask him, or have an attorney in the mayors office do it. I am sure though that if there are overruns that there will be a lawsuit.
The important thing here is that the Seattle process (TSP) should be respected and nothing accomplished.

(egads Szilagyi does Feit know you're overtly cheating on him here?? hussy you!)
Conlin is a coward.
Who, since he stood up to McGinn, is dead meat, and knew that when he stood up to him, so to that extent, NOT a coward.
Speaking only on my experience as a lifetime coward, that is. I am yellower than an the jockey shorts of the oldest living draft-dodger after a strong sneeze.
If the Stranger would take McGinn's dick out of their mouths for just a minute, maybe they would see that this is mere posturing and obfuscating to keep McGinn's true agenda in the limelight. What happened to the campaign promise to respect the decision of the council and prior administration if elected to office?

He's been threatening lawsuits, distracting with his sea wall proposal, and relying on the dreaded "Seattle Process" to drag us all into another decade of dithering on this. I just can't give a shit about boulevards and aspen trees when I risk my life daily riding on the viaduct death trap.
@Westside bullshit. What defense is there for Seattle residents paying a disproportionate share of the costs of a state project? If the tunnel goes over and everyone in WA owes +$500, how is it fair if everyone in Seattle owes +$1000?

THAT is bullshit and probably unconstitutional as it's a state project. That's why Conlin and Frank Chopp are both failures to their voters in Seattle.

Any defense of that kind of payment requirement is indefensible. That's how McGinn needs to be presenting this.
Brawk! Brawk, Brawk, Brawk ... Cluck!

Brawk Brawk!
Put more simply: Conlin and Chopp signed ALL of you up for a mortage without

1) Knowing what the interest rate was.

2) Knowing how many years the mortgage would take to pay off.

3) Without getting insurance on the property in question.

4) Signed with a co-owner, but decided that they would pay for a larger share of the cost... which, because of 1-3, is an unknown variable.

What lunatic thinks such a mortgage would be a good idea?
"If the tunnel goes over"

Is that how Holmes would argue that in court?
Is that how McSandbag will keep debating that point?

What is that number?
@11 all a moot point if the motherfucker falls down on McGinn's watch. You think the Washington state and Seattle taxpayer is going to get a better deal if we're in the position of an emergency rebuild of the entire Seattle waterfront? Not bloody likely.
How about every time there is a tunnel post they just import the comments from the previous ones. There is nothing really new to be said.
sorry, I was giving Richard Conlin's response @12 ...

Joe's right. It's more like a car loan, actually. Or more like a student loan for a four-year degree.

So just forget buying a new car to use in that tunnel if you live in Seattle - Conlin wants to spend that money from your family in your name without letting you vote on it.

Or give up your hope of getting a degree - Conlin's spending your college money on toys for Billionaires without letting you vote on it.

Seattle said NO. It will keep saying NO. And they know it.
What I want to know is, if McGinn is always riding his bike everywhere, why is he so fat?
@15 the pull down of the Viaduct is a critical safety issue that needs to be detached from the construction of the tunnel.

The fucking of downtown traffic for a couple years is literally irrelevant in the face of the potential of the viaduct collapsing in rush hour traffic.
Good post, Eli! I was thinking the same thing... if Conlin wants to throw things at the mayor, let him do so in person rather than in a blog filled with untruths.

We don't want to pay for overruns. They could be huge. McGinn is standing up for us. What on earth is Conlin thinking?
I doubt there will be a debate. I think both camps realize they could both lose. Having said that I'd love to see this double implosion.
Zander, you're assuming the default, which is what happens if you lose, is equally unacceptable to both sides.

Most people who prefer a Rebuilt Viaduct could live, grudingly, with a Surface Plus Transit option, just as most who prefer a Surface Plus Transit option could live with a Rebuilt Viaduct. They cost about the same and both have transit, downtown exits, and freight capacity.

The Billionaires Tunnel on the other hand, has massive global warming impacts that put an already-in-violation county into further violation of the new EPA global warming emissions (mostly due to the tunnel itself and the fans/pumps), zero transit, zero downtown exits, and half the freight capacity. It really only serves Billionaires that want to get from SLU/EMP or the Gates Foundation to their sports boxes at the stadiums or to their private jets at Boeing Field, while sticking the middle class voters of Seattle with a whopper of a huge bar tab for the next 30 years.