Gregoire's Empty Threats About Taking the Tunnel Money

Comments

2
She was talking about the legislature, not her - you know that, right?
3
Anyone who thinks the viaduct should be replaced by a very difficult and cost-overrun-likely tunnel with NO EXITS TO DOWNTOWN is possibly clueless also.
4
Her supporters can't even get local Dems to applaud their hollow speeches or to bid for their auction items.

Either the Gov backs down - as she did on 520 - or she'll take down a lot of people with her in this epic Billionaires' Tunnel disaster.

A lot.

Never forget that Seattle's vote is the margin for ALL statewide elections.

Every. Single. One.
5
jeffy@1, no one is saying that a single road can replace the Viaduct traffic. The argument is that a network of city streets, plus the loss of induced demand, plus sensible improvements to I-5, and investments in transit, can absorb enough of the traffic to make building a replacement freeway (above or below ground) a waste of money.
6
This is a pretty stupid argument.
7
and from voters she needs to get reelected

Wait, is anyone seriously thinking she could get reelected at this point?
8
Gregoire margin statewide, election night 2008: 113,500
Gregoire margin in the 7th Congressional District, election night 2008: 85,000
Gregoire margin in King County, election night 2008: 105,000

More than half of Gregoire's margin of victory came from Seattle. She currently has a 36% approval rating in the city according to recent polling, a drop of 5 points from last month's polls. While raw numbers say little, trends say a lot.

Word to the wise. :)
9
Conventional wisdom is that she is not running again.
10
Wow, so the city makes threats of not signing off on the tunnel, thus preventing the state from moving on with the project, then the state makes similar threats of pulling all funding and killing any chance of having any replacement to the viaduct, possibly paving the way to disqualify I-99 as an interstate roadway, thus allowing the state to wash their hands of this.

Brilliant move, this is EXACTLY what you guys wanted, right? right? Screw those billionaires who live under the viaduct, right?!

11
Conventional wisdom shows she's a high-ranking democrat tied very closely with the core party.

Keep spitting on Seattle and digging hands into Seattle's business (first her forceful endorsement of Mallahan, now strong anti-Seattle rhetoric in the tunnel flap) and she becomes an albatross. Our very own Dubya.
12
Exactly, Baconcat.

We did not ask for this war.

But we will win it, nonetheless, and the carnage from those battles will take many more than were gained by doing what the Billionaires and the Millionaires and their property developer friends ask.

Seattle is back. Joni Balter quakes in her boots when she hears that, for she knows that we, once awoken, are the center of the storm, seeming calm to the outside, but burning with a fierce fire that, once unleashed, can not be withstood.

And the Governor has stood upon this precipice before, and lost each and every time she dared waken the beast that is Seattle, which can not be foresaken or bargained with.
13
@10: Um, the viaduct is at risk of collapsing every day. We are overdue for quakes from several different faults and subduction zones and yet we're dithering on removing the viaduct, pushing it back and pushing it back.

WSDOT and Gregoire tied the removal of the viaduct to its replacement option, preventing timely removal. They also put the seawall at risk by preventing comprehensive work on the seawall until later this decade.

If we get them off this damned tunnel obsession, maybe we can focus on the safety factor as soon as possible.
14
@13

Ive said it many many times. The reason they tied it in that way was because the City COULD NOT decide on an option. They spent years deciding on an option and in the end, the state had to make this decision for us because the city refused to decide on one. Do people really think that the state simply chose this options without deciding on any others? LOL. Whats funny is the fact that were now trying to block the tunnel and somehow expect the state to pay for any alternative, even if we don't know what that option is right now.

The tunnel option was chosen because it was the ONLY option that replaced I-99 and did not disrupt commerce on the Waterfront. Whatever price tag you put on a replacement for the viaduct is not without a tax compensation packages designed to offset the cost of seriously disrupting a major tourist destination. Thats the part of the cost that nobody seems to want to talk about.
15
Oh and hey, wont this be good for a laugh. We reject the tunnel, then vote in favor a new replacement, only to have the state not pay for any of it, then some new mayor get elected and decides to prevent it from happening being built.

Dont think it will happen? Breaking ground on any new option is going to cross into the next election cycle. So never say never.
16
@11 And the Dems suffer for one election cycle?

Not that many people are paying attention, Seattle is pretty split on the tunnel, and its not like the anti-tunnel types are going to vote republican, so its just no that important politically.
17
@16 - 2/3 against the tunnel is not "pretty split".

Unless you think the Minority Rule of 10 percent of the physical population with 40 seats in the US Senate is "pretty split".

We ARE the 500 pound Gorilla in the room. And the Governor is trying to take our bananas and charge us a management fee for taking them.
18
@14: Hun, a collapse would do far more to seriously upset the waterfront than any tear-down would. Falling concrete killing someone would do far more to seriously upset the waterfront than any tear-down would. Hell, someone getting beat or raped under the viaduct would do more than a tear-down.

You can knock it off with this panicked game of "but if you get YOUR way, it'll be EVEN WORSE".
19
@16: Mm, I can't think of any candidate elected in recent history that made the tunnel a major issue in her/his campaign.
20
I buy Cascadian's argument more than anybody else's bullshit. I don't believe that there must be, now and forever, the capacity for 110,00 cars a day.

One way or another those trips need to stop happening, most importantly by offering a transit alternative. Not to mention shopping locally, moving closer to your job, and generally rethinking car culture.

The real problem is that Seattle is fundamentally a conservative town, terrified of change. The tunnel is just a fantasy that lets them cling to the status quo. Truth hurts, I know.
21
Your post makes no sense. Who are your legislative allies? Why wouldn't the State use the money where it is wanted and needed for projects that are ready to go? Why do you think that McGinn gets to play hardball and everyone else must play nice? McGinn has said since before the campaign that the State will "come around" to his way of thinking. It's not happening - and McGinn does not control Seattle's vote. He barely got elected. Furthermore, McGinn’s opposition to the Deep-Bore Tunnel is mainly a ploy to establish himself as Seattle’s decision-maker. If the tunnel issue wasn't available he would find or manufacture some other issue to attempt his divide and conquer strategy. After eight months in office, McGinn has one lonely accomplishment: he has divided Seattle’s pro-environment progressives. More at www.lightandair.wordpress.com