New Initiative to Put Tunnel Cost Overruns on Ballot Looks Inevitable


Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson?

It is the sound of .. inevitability.
backroom deals get dealt with in public eventually.
Unless it's a statewide initiative it's absoulutely worthless.
@3, as a political organizing tool it's not worthless at all. Keep your eye on the ball, sir.
@3 as the Council is actively ignoring it's largest group of stakeholders, there's no other recourse left.
@3 no, actually, you can't build it without the city agreeing, especially since they do insane things like tunnel below some really expensive properties.

Let Seattle vote if the State says we have to pay. We are Citizens, not Serfs!
If the initiative is to vote yes or no for the Deep Bore Tunnel, then you are playing with lives as you have to start over from scratch with all the planning, which may take 2-3 years to get to. THEN we get to vote on the alternative for the DBT, which will might actually fail because it might not be cheaper than the DBT option because McGinn will stress bike lanes & light rail options, which could add a third deck to the viaduct.

Then you get to deal with the fact that waterfront business will DEMAND financial compensation for all the disruption re-building the viaduct will cause.

A statewide vote will certainly vote in favor of rejecting the tunnel, which is what most of you people want. However its going to bite you in the ass when another statewide vote to replace the viaduct, no matter the cost, high chance of being rejected as well. So while the citizens of Seattle ABSOLUTELY NEED state money to build this, it is hypocritical to say that we don't need a state wide vote on it.

Mind you, the Deep Bore Tunnel Plan is the best solution, just as long as the state pays for 100% of it. Then theres no safety issues, or worries about not connecting to 1st Ave, etc, etc.

Seriously guys, you sound like Tea Party nut balls flooding into Town Hall meetings complaining about the costs of Health Care Reform.
@7 um, no.

Look, we already started construction on the replacement Viaduct near the West Seattle bridge.

We already know what to do with the Seawall.

We even pretty much all agree on the tearing down of the existing viaduct and the necessary transit and traffic improvements to handle that.

The only thing - and I do mean the only thing - is when/if we replace the actual Viaduct from SODO to Seattle Center. Everything else is already agreed to.
The council is completely tone deaf to the will of the public on this issue. It's pretty amazing actually. They should turn up their hearing aids.
So, when do we start signing this initiative?
If the initiative is to vote yes or no for the Deep Bore Tunnel, then you are playing with lives
The only people "playing with lives" are the ones who refuse to support tearing down the viaduct right now. People like you, apparently.

Would the "disagree" portion of this graph include people who think it's batshit-crazy for Seattle to be building the world's widest tunnel under any circumstances?
This is a McGinn vehicle first and foremost and it saves the people of Seattle from nothing. It is a bait and switch issue - by fighting the cost overrun issue, this preserves the taxing capacity for the City of Seattle - nothing else.

The Mayor and the City Council are in the planning stages for an LID that raises some $400 Million, that taxes "the people that benefit from the tunnel". Harris and company are fronting for the mayor, under the guise that there is some benefit for distressed constituencies; however nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely helping their political ally the Mayor carry out his agenda, taxing the citizens of Seattle himself.

Unfortunately also, the "volunteers" they intend to use are being preyed upon a second time by the very people that are supposed to be helping them. A classic setup of someone in power using their position to take advantage of someone that is vulnerable.

Not a very pretty setup, sleazy politics at best, and certainly no benefit to the people of Seattle.

Elizabeth Campbell