Thank god for Mayoral Vetoes.

Kind of Ironic since the Mayor dropped the whole "If elected, ill do what I can do block the tunnel" promise, only to have him flip-flop on that promise and basically do everything he can do block the tunnel. In addition to that, you get the feeling that he has plans to block the repairing of the seawall and block the construction of the new 520 bridge.

As we've clearly seen this action with Republicans nationwide over the past 2 years, saying "no", without offering valid alternative to the problem, makes you a fucking moron in the eyes of people looking to you to solve problems, regardless if they voted for you or not!

Unless the vote provides at least 3 valid options that are ready to go and don't require 2-3 years of studies, it wont be a legitimate vote . How many here honestly think its going to be a Yes/No vote? With a public vote like that, your playing with lives because its going to be a few years before a valid alternative comes forward, which again MUST be voted on by the public and has a chance of failing to pass. Why might it fail? Because McGinn only wants one plan, his plan. If its put up for a vote, I just dont see him putting up two other options and if they are, they'll be obscenely stupid, designed to steer you towards the plan he wants.

Its all too easy to scare people into voting against anything, again we've seen this action with Republicans, just keep harping the one fact that its going to cost money and turn us all into communists.

There are two valid alternatives. It's right there in the Draft EIS.

The best part of a representative democracy is that we don't need to take public votes on every tricky issue. that's why we hire people (via elections) to inform themselves and make important calls on our behalf.

Initiatives lead to cowardly legislation and never-ending process.

I suppose tomorrow the mayor will want to try reinflating the sense of urgency the council poked a hole in today. Our suuuper-slow moving council is playing a long game now I guess, or maybe has been the whole time (which could partially excuse their refusal to push back much against the mayor's barrage messaging style.)

Delay will be a strategic challenge for him - he'll want to make sure when the vote does occur it does so with everyone stirred up to his liking.

I can't remember exactly, didn't the public vote against Safeco or the taxes 2 build it?(They end'ed up building it) I can't remember exactly what the public sentiment was.
(Aaahhhh...to be young again....). Maybe history is repeating itself. Help a brother out....

@7, true enough, They asked us twice to advise whether we'd like to contribute to the stadiums from the public purse. We twice said no, yet here we are (in fairness, all ended well enough). Still, left me wary ever since of votes called on a whim by electeds unsure of their powers.

Thanks. If the M's could hit or DJack never got so over-rated it B perfect. Anyway-The tunnel is a TUNNEL. "Scary" options for surface dwellers.

@7 & 8 the football stadium vote passed statewide.

@10, that's right, I should have specified I meant Safeco Field, the baseball stadium. King County voters were asked to fund it and said no way, make the team owners pay, so the legislature took over. Funny in light of all this today.

So, the Governor, AG, City Attorney, City Council, all made the point that the legislation is vague, and the council split the approval of the technical aspects of the tunnel from the financial issues, sending that to a window in time when the legislature can solve the problem it caused.
Now would have been a good time to have the mayor claim some strange victory on cost overruns, eat the fact that the tunnel project keeps going, and make the legislature correcting the language his political end game. At least he can end his braying early enough in his Trento move on to something he has actual control over.
But his fans will never let him let go of this doomed fight.

How about an initiative that, rather than voting on the tunnel project a a whole, simply forbids the city from paying any cost overruns in the parts that the state is responsible for?

@13 you're new to this, aren't you?