Lest anyone misinterpret Holmes' opinion to mean we should be less afraid than Hizzoner needs us to be.

Meanwhile, it appears that the Suburban Times has agreed to pay the cost overruns for my family.

Which is good, cause $10,000 for a family is a lot of taxes that any homeowner or renter in Seattle would have to pay ...

Is the City of Seattle completely incapable of being happy with their mayor? Does everyone need to whine and wither and moan and groan about anything s/he does or says?

"Oh god, he doesn't want to get us stuck with overruns, HOW DARE HE! WHAT A MOTHERFUCKER!"

Not everyone, just me prolly.

Stupid fucking credulous hack.

@4: Well, you aren't elenchos so you're ahead of the curve already.

AV club has lousy parties.

But they do have good stuff to borrow ...

Shut the fuck up, Will.

[In honor of Fnarf, absent friend.]

Pete Holmes's analysis went a long ways towards assuaging my fears. As for Rob McKenna's idea that the state could withhold transportation funds from Seattle, my first thought was, "What sort of transportation funds does Seattle really 'get' anyway from the state?" (I don't know.)

Upon further reflection I realize, of course Rob McKenna is going to say something like that. Do you really expect him to say, "That little cost overruns provision is toothless"?

The strange thing is, I don't entirely disagree with McGinn either, although I wouldn't agree with his assessment that the following is "the worst position of all": "an unfinished tunnel, lawyers litigating Seattle’s share of cost overruns, and a state Legislature with the undeniable power to enforce its spending cap."

No, the worst position of all is if McGinn's all-of-the-above scenario forces Seattle to pay the balance to finish the tunnel. If Seattle is left with a rebuilt seawall and a bypass tunnel sitting unused until somebody else who wants it worse than we do finds the money--hey, Seattle can get by just fine with that.