Mike McGinn, persuasive advocate for protecting Seattle from cost overrun uncertainty.

Dominic "You Lie" Holden, unpersuasive advocate for protecting Seattle from cost overrun uncertainty.

Dom, you could learn a thing or two from our mayor. And this is not to say I'm entirely persuaded by his argument.

Notice how ECB and (blonde lady obscured in the back) are asking loaded questions, but the rest of the journalists are asking for clarification on action and current conditions. I will guess that's Joni back there?

Delightful narrative-writing there, PubliCola and Seattle Times.

Here's the question I have, and it's very much a constitutional/legal question. Can the state legislature pass a law that imposes a tax on a given municipality or set of municipalities or county without that entity's approval? Isn't that the essence of the risk the mayor is identifying?

The Seattle Times is trying to force people into making it seem like the Council and the Mayor are at each other's throats constantly when, really, it's only been the tunnel and the panhandling ordinance that have caused issues.

@3: That's not the risk, the risk is that they'll begin building a huge tunnel under the city and run out of money to complete it. The portals, the tunnel itself, then become a huge safety risk and it would be stupid to shrug off the additional costs. The gambit is the state's to win, really. If they turn one ounce of dirt, it's all over.

The State would willingly put our lives at risk to get this built. They know that they've got us hostage if they're plowing under our downtown, our city's livelihood, and they can't complete the project with their own capped spending.

Dang he's a fine Mayor!

And once more we see that the Suburban Times does not - in any way, shape, or form - represent the interests of the Citizens of Seattle.

Like congestion? The tunnel will INCREASE it.

Like commutes? The tunnel will MAKE THEM LONGER.

And all for the low low price of $10,000 EXTRA - not counting $5 tolls each way - for this boondoggle for every Seattle Household - renter or buyer.

What a bargain!

Baconcat @4, you're entitled to your scenario. But unless there's a 100% certainty that things will play out the way you describe once cost overruns arise, my question is still worth answering.

@7: You're posing a loaded question because you know the legislature can't force a tax on a single entity thanks to the state constitution. They can, however, cap spending and they are fully capable of suspending obligations when they run out of money.

They did it with the viaduct when it was first built, buying land and creating infrastructure to build downtown access ramps without building the ramps themselves. The city ponied up to get them built through a massive levy after that.

All the same, there isn't a 100% certainty that this tunnel will even be built, so don't get so breathless.

Can't we do a referendum saying that Seattle can only pay for cost overruns for the removal of the existing Viaduct and all other cost overruns must be paid by the personal fortunes of the individual council members, and not be subject to bankruptcy and be primary liens on all their properties and assets and rights?

tick. tock. it's the sound of the Tunnel Crock! it's coming for you, Conlin, and your hook won't stop it!

Baconcat @8: You're posing a loaded question because you know the legislature can't force a tax on a single entity thanks to the state constitution.

Actually, I didn't know that. Just suspected it. But thanks anyway for answering my question.

Can anyone point me toward the particular passage in the constitution if it's not impenetrable?

They just have to do it on port cities with a population over xxx,xxx - which just happens to only be Seattle.

Mr. Council President - TEAR DOWN THIS WALL! if you want a tunnel, you can pay for it out of your OWN pocket.