Dear Mr. Mayor: Please file suit against both the Council and against the State in regards to the cost overrun provision. Would this be valid as a class action suit?

Also, dear Mr. Conlin: enjoy your final few years as an elected public servant in Seattle. You sold all the taxpayers out. Tunnel, viaduct, acqueduct: who cares. The fact you're willing to force the entire city to bend over and take it from the state shows your loyalty is not with the people that elected you. Buh bye.

Conlin is a coward.

Conlin, isn't your job as City Council President to hand the executive branch something they can actually execute fully and faithfully? If the executive branch is expressing dismay at something that they feel is unresolved, your answer cannot -- and should not -- be "it's resolved". That's not an answer. That's feckless dithering. Even if you suspect he's secretly -- or even openly -- trying to kill the tunnel, your opinion does not matter. That is not your job.

McGinn has the upper-hand on this, period. If any -- ANY -- issue arises, be it a broken TBM, a dead construction worker, or a lunch bill that's $5 over what's budgeted, it's on you. And more than that, your colleagues will share the blame. Recognize the Mayor's stance and the fact that popular support for his position will increase should a hiccup happen, even if it's not related to cost overruns. The electorate is notoriously fickle when it comes to trusting a government to spend their money wisely, so even the word "delay" will be a burden on your electability and that of your colleagues on the City Council.

If you are unwilling to provide a resolution to this issue, please understand that you are not doing your job. The electorate will respond accordingly.

And don't expect that opposition to the council means an ouster for a Mayor-- you guys thought the same of Nickels, and many of the same accusations of "obstructionism" and being a "do-nothing" arose. 8 years later, who's laughing?

Get it together, man.

I have an in-law who's pretty high up in one of the firms that bid for this project. He said he was actually really relieved that they didn't get it, because he expected it to be a nightmare, and he could do without the headache. So, good luck, Seattle! You're going to be paying out the nose for this tunnel, and even engineers that would build it for you don't want it.

Speaking as someone who's not necessarily against the new tunnel (I just happen to think it's a spectacular waste of a potentially incredible amount of money), I've just got to say, it's like Conlin crafted this statement for maximum disingenuousness and all-around dickishness:

Scores of engineers, project teams, and leaders in the freight, labor, and business communities have debated replacement options for over a decade.

We do not need more debate at this stage of implementation;

Conlin knows damn well McGinn is not looking to debate replacement options. He has made clear that the tunnel is option that was chosen.

Instead of a public face-to-face with McGinn, how about we simply ask Richard Conlin to make a statement explaining precisely how Seattle taxpayers will not be stuck with the bill for cost overruns? Is that really too much to ask?

Instead of a public face-to-face with McGinn, how about we simply ask Richard Conlin to make a statement explaining precisely how Seattle taxpayers will not be stuck with the bill for cost overruns? Is that really too much to ask?

If he is unwilling to do this and stand up to his political contributors, I'm baffled if any option remains but for everyone to unleash the lawyers.

Conlin, is there room in the 2010 budget for the legal fees you're lining the city up for here, if this goes down?

Where to begin...

It takes the City Council "Over a deacde" to come to an agreement and they insist they are providing Seattle with leadership.

McGinn's cost over run argument backfires imediately. If big projects always over run than that applies to his Sea Wall, Waterfront and 520 plans as well.

I agree, Conlin is a Coward.

By the way, when is the public vote of the Citizens of Seattle for the $1 BILLION to $4 BILLION in cost overruns - that's the cost of a car or a four-year degree per family.

And, yes, renters will have to pay that too.

Zander @7: McGinn's cost over run argument backfires imediately. If big projects always over run than that applies to his Sea Wall, Waterfront and 520 plans as well.

Zander dear, are you deliberately trying to be obtuse or does that come naturally to you? The difference is not that there will be overruns; the difference is sticking one weaker party with those overrun costs.

Well, there's another difference. A tunnel project like this one is far more apt to see massive overruns than any of those other projects you mention. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

@7 - no, everyone agrees about the Sea Wall, the portion of SR-99 where they're rebuilding the Viaduct (the southern part) and the 520 thing is mostly addressed.

It's just the insane Billionaires Tunnel.

They know that won't pass a Vote of the Citizens of Seattle.

I remember I'd asked a while ago on Slog about whether it would be possible to cap the public costs on the tunnel project's bidding. In other words, the lead contractor agrees to some sort of fixed-bid contract and if there are overruns, they eat it. That way, if the project is too expensive, you know beforehand and have a chance to back out.

I remember somebody gave me a credible response. I just don't remember what it was, although I think it came down to, "You can't do a fixed-bid on these things." I've got to search.

OK, here's the thread I was looking for @11:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

Pardon the interruption.

Conlin's wise to keep his distance - my niece taught me that in Fallout 3 when you see a crowd of mutant giants on the horizon you don't wander into range of their leader's fists if you want to survive. Instead, you take potshots from as far away as possible, which, blogging from Europe, 'nuff said.

Plus, why would he go to a cage match debate to repeat the things nobody pays attention to when he writes them on a blog? Then he'd be not (as Savage enjoys taunting) a coward but a plain fool.

Refresh my memory: was our 2007 vote the last one when we rejec…?

Results released Tuesday night showed widespread opposition to a new elevated highway on the downtown waterfront, with more than 55 percent rejecting it. Voters were even more harsh on the four-lane tunnel pushed by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, with nearly 70 percent opposed.

Where is Conlin's mandate to push forward on the tunnel, let alone Seattle taxpayers absorbing the cost overruns?

You know, putting together an initiative that would direct the city to take any legal steps possible, up to the US Supreme Court, to prevent the city taxpayers from paying any cost overruns on the tunnel would take only 20,380 signatures to qualify as Initiative 101 based on the last mayoral election. Could the Council stop such an initiative?

Gregiore was on KUOW this morning. She and Conlin are reading from the same playbook: "Don't worry about cost overruns. Not gonna happen. The only thing that could cause overruns is delay. We have to build now."

(1) If we have noting to worry about regarding cost overruns, why insist on forcing Seattle to pay for any overruns? Neither Conlin nor Gregiore deny that Seattle will eat the cost overruns if there are any.

(2) So what if we delay? An earthquake might knock the viaduct down next year. Or it may not happen for another hundred years. Using a potential earthquake to scare people into a bad project is lame.

(3) Boston's Big Dig ended up going billions over budget. Nearly $20 Billion over budget, depending how you look at it. Sure, that's the most egregious example in modern history, but If the Seattle tunnel goes even a fraction of that amount over budget, it would kill Seattle government for years to come.

I am ambivalent about the tunnel. I don't completely object. But the clause to require Seattle to eat the cost overruns is a total deal killer for me. It is totally unacceptable.

I just sent an email to his official address calling him a wuss. It felt pretty good to hit "send" on that one, especially with the line "I thought you were gonna run as the law-and-order, macho manly type, but you won't debate a dude with a shaggy beard for an hour? Jeez."

I should heckle electeds more often.

Contact Conlin to tell him how unhappy you are:

richard.conlin@seattle.gov

Phone: (206) 684-8805 Fax: (206) 684-8587

Dom, you guys ever look into his campaign contributions, on public records, to see how many groups that many benefit directly from the tunnel have paid his way into office?

If they get 10 emails it's a big deal, Juris.

And the countdown starts!

1 ...

Facebook Group opposed to tunnel cost overrun issue here:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12…

Reverse Polarity @17:

Gregiore was on KUOW this morning. She and Conlin are reading from the same playbook: "Don't worry about cost overruns. Not gonna happen. The only thing that could cause overruns is delay. We have to build now."

It's a bit like the car dealer's technique where they offer you a great deal, but only if you buy today.

Gov. Gregoire, imagine if the federal government offered to partner with the state of Washington to rebuild I-5 as a tunnel. The feds would pay most of the costs, but any overruns--they would be on the state. Imagine going to Washington taxpayers with that deal. You wouldn't. You're not that stupid. So why are you blithely treating us, the residents of Seattle, like we're that stupid?

And listen, I'm on the same page as Reverse Polarity re.: I am ambivalent about the tunnel. I don't completely object. But the clause to require Seattle to eat the cost overruns is a total deal killer for me. It is totally unacceptable.

Cressona

Are you being ironic?

Why do you exempt McGinn from your own expectation that he present a payment plan for the cost over runshe predicts in his alternatives?

You are also ignoring the fact that McGinn does not have a working coalition to make his Viaduct ideas work. All he brings to the table are dissent and delay. Neither of these fix the Viaduct.

Maybe he's just tired of hearing Fatso lie about what he promised to do in the campaign - you know, carry out the will of the council and all that.

@24 not to thrash a dead horse, but Seattle voters by 70% rejected the tunnel. Why did the Council still push it?

Zander @23, you're still stuck in this old debate about being pro-tunnel or anti-tunnel. Mike McGinn isn't presenting any alternatives. He has begrudgingly accepted that we're going ahead with the tunnel. What he is simply asking for is what any elected official doing their due diligence would ask for--that his constituents not be stuck with an open-ended tab for a massive public works project.

And I notice that you ignored my response @9 to your charge that somehow because all projects can face overruns all projects' financing plans' are just as bad as this tunnel's.

Anyway, Zander, maybe you can give a bit of an explanation where you're coming from. Is this about the tunnel or is it all about some personal animosity on your part against Mike McGinn? Aren't you the genius who accused McGinn of politically exploiting the earthquake in Haiti? Even Rush Limbaugh has to admire that kind of creative chutzpah.

I wonder if, when we build the Billionaires Tunnel, we'll see homeless people in Seattle with cardboard signs saying "Can't pay Billionaires Tunnel Tax - can you spare $10,000 so my family won't starve?"

Good for him!

I know what Richard's costume is for Halloween.

He'll be dressed up as a chicken.