It's easy to criticize something.

But the law is a fickle beast.

Initiatives and propositions are what they are - frequently a waste of time, but the MSS one is more likely to be workable in a court of law.

Which is why the Governator fears it so.
I love that the initiatives will demand the Council to resist an enemy they're pretty sure doesn't exist.

It's like extracting a solemn promise from your dad, who doesn't believe in Bigfoot, that he'll protect you at all times from Sasquatch attacks.

(That's a promise my dad made to me on those occasions when we ventured to the wilds outside of Capitol Hill.)
Elizabeth Campbell needs to read the history of I-21 some 3 decades ago that was going to stop the state's I-90 project in Seattle. Even tho we had enough validated signatures to get it onto the ballot, the superior court threw it off the ballot because it exceeded the powers granted to the initiative process. The SCAT initiative is not substantively different from I-21, and courts love to follow precedent. And the I-21 decision had lots of precedent to rely on -- unfortunately for us.

Looks to me like the MSS initiative is written to dance around those prohibitions -- which causes it to look weak and ineffectual. No doubt more court fodder if/when it gets enough validated signatures.
Okay, now, I understand opposition to the tunnel by virtue of the fact that we're risking huge cost overruns due to the state's refusal to pick up any of the risk, along with horrible and quasi-ethical bidding process for which Olympia is responsible. Are these people actually against the tunnel because it is a tunnel? Would they rather just rebuild the terrible eyesore that cripples waterfront business because they like it?

These are earnest questions, I'm really not trying to be a dick.
Or ... we could just have a binding public vote of Seattle citizens on the Deeply Boring Tunnel.

But the pro-tunnel people know they'll lose that funding vote, because it doesn't work for us.
By the way, the public comment period for WSDOT's DEIS for the SR-99 Viaduct Replacement is still open right now.

Have you made a comment yet?
Let's look at it this way - either our lawyer drafted a legally binding initiative that will survive a court challenge, or he drafted a turkey. My bet given that he and his firm have drafted multiple initiatives (the one before 101 was the I-1100 liquor initiative, that have withstood challenges, is that he has performed the task that we asked him too.

Our attorney/firm is Dick Stephens from Groen Klinge Stephens. Who was the lawyer or lawyers that drafted MSS's initiative and what is their experience in drafting bulletproof initiatives?

So far nothing on this - we disclosed the legal credentials and credibility of our initiative right from the start. So far all we have is a bunch of innuendo about I-101 from individuals with no legal training at this point, and much less not a word from the attorney that drafted MSS's initiative, if it was.

What we need to replace the AWV is an elegant, aesthetic, nearly transparent, fully functional (i.e. no lane/shoulder/height etc. restrictions, providing full traffic flow capacity, w/ downtown on/off ramps, a restaurant/viewing platform w/o huge, non-green energy-sucking fans and lighting, non-claustrophobic, that treats the handicapped like first-class citizens) cable-stayed bridge w/ state-of-the-art Eugene Figg technology--at a fraction of the cost of a tunnel w/o any of the risks; and which can complete our touristic competition w/ SFO, adding to an Embarcadero-like Alaskan Way Boulevard a signature iconic bridge that is much nicer than the Golden Gate or the Oakland Bay bridge.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.