Great Scott!! LETS GOT BACK TO THE FUTURE AND PREVENT THIS FISCAL TRAGEDY FROM HAPPENING ... but first, lets do some impact studies and conduct a citywide vote.

You know, I sometimes get kinda down and think I'm the only person who has this bad habit of insulting his own intelligence. But then you come along with something like this, and I realize I'm not alone after all. Thank you!

@ 2: come on, now. can't you just be cheerful gus for two seconds? does that sound so hard?

And don't forget Holme's buddy Conlin saying when the Council voted to overturn McGinn's veto in February:
“There’s plenty of opportunity for people to put this on the ballot if they choose to do so.”

Adrian, some days the rageoholic haze gets so thick around Slog only Schmader can cut through it. One post from him and I'll be giddy gus all over again!

This is a State project. So just maybe there was no time when Seattle voters had a "right" to vote on it.

I love how all these "state" projects really only affect Seattle, especially when they are built directly in Seattle and have no beneficial impact for Seattle. Yeah, Seattle voters clearly shouldn't get a say in something that is detrimental to them.

You realize that the light rail that's being built isn't the same project that the voters approved years ago, right?

You also realize that this argument is just as fucking stupid when you make as it is when the conservative trolls make it, right? Right?

@5: I hear you. For me, a cute post from Bethany warms me up no matter how grumpy I am.

Plan for city council elections in November: vote the bums out!

@8: I'm pretty sure you don't understand why Link was retooled.

seandr - the light rail built is the light rail we voted for in 1996. It's just late, but that's because we had a GIANT BUBBLE that increased real estate and construction prices.

One Tolled Tunnel of Terribleness to rule them all.
Three EPA hearings for the Back East Kings.
Five DEIS stages of approval to make them jump thru rings.
Seven votes of the people for funding galore.
Nine million tons of particulate and carbon pollution to rime them in gore.

Deep beneath the Emerald City where the griblings lie,
Dwells the One Tunnel and it's orcish scry.

@12 'nuf said?

So Dominic, you and Cary Moon and the whole anti-tunnel crowd were actually OK with the tunnel prior to Oct. 2009? Cause I vaguely remember all of you griping about it back then.

Ian @14, I, like Dominic and 70% of Seattle voters were against it in '09 and '05. That's why the Council announced that the favorable vote in the Council was non-binding.

And we the public are STILL are not informed by WSDOT or the governor as to the specific cost to drive through the toll booths. No citizen vote will be accurate until that figure is decided upon and released. Like this article states, the less we know, the more we like the tunnel option.

Or, alternatively, Protect Seattle Now could have just fucking written an initiative that repealed the Oct 2009 ordinance rather than the more legally questionable one they had you sign!

And an objective news media might have fact checked that little tidbit and pointed out the flaw early, in time for it to be corrected or an alternate initiative offered to the public. But, no, you were all too in love to doubt. You let Protect Seattle ride you bareback and now you can't understand why all these lesions are popping up all over the place...

Stop blaming The Man for your own bad choices, Dom.

@Timrrr, What do you mean "In time for it to be corrected"? The tunnel is not built yet, nor has the Environmental Impact Statement come in from the Feds. New, negative aspects of the tunnel project, such as tolling, buildings settling and cracking in Pioneer Square, and the economy worsening, have added up to increased public scrutiny of the project since October, 2009.

In addition, if the federal government's Environmental Impact Statement gives the existing project the thumbs down, then it will be WSDOT, the governor, and all but one of the Seattle City Councilmembers blaming The Man. ;-)

What a surprise!
What, me worry?

"...,the only time citizens had right to vote on this was the first time the Seattle City Council approved a nonbinding ordinance on the deep-bore tunnel—in October 2009."
__________________________________

What kind of legal (legislative) oomph (force and/or effect) does an admitted "non-binding" ordinance carry? If non-binding has no legal force or effect (null and void), would there have realistically been an opportunity to vote down a hollow act?

Charlie's got goose bumps people! (2012)