It's true that the city council and many state legislators now sing the praises of monorail. But it wasn't always that way. Less than two years ago, City Council Members Heidi Wills and Richard Conlin repealed the original monorail initiative, I-41. This forced citizens to write another initiative, I-53, in response. I-53 reconstituted the Elevated Transportation Company (ETC) and required them to present a monorail plan to voters in November 2002. To help make the plan happen, the ETC is pushing key legislation in Olympia that will allow Seattle citizens to tax themselves to fund the monorail, and set up a Seattle Public Transportation Authority (SPTA) to build and maintain the monorail. The legislation is absolutely needed, but unfortunately, it violates the spirit of I-53 by giving the city council too much control over the monorail's fate. (Remember, I-53 emerged to circumvent a city council that had proven untrustworthy.)
The main concern with the bill comes in Section 7, which mandates that the city council sign off on the monorail plan before it gets built. What the hell? That's right, even though the ETC will come up with a plan intended for voter approval in November, the city council has the power to change the plan or hijack it altogether. Though it would be political suicide for council members to do so, the possibility is there. What happened?
Running the monorail through the city may be popular, but legally and logistically it presents challenges for the city. Everything from sewer lines to parking lots, which the city oversees, must fit into the city comprehensive plan. Incorporating a huge public project like the monorail into the city plan is not easy. "There's a lot to it," says Council Member Nick Licata. For example, will the monorail interfere with current city-approved view corridors? And how will new monorail parking stations mesh with the current city ban on parking lots? The ETC tried to address the logistical challenges by giving more power to the city council to tweak the monorail plan and help it fit into the city-wide plan. Unfortunately, the ETC has opened up a can of worms. "They were trying to deal with legal questions," admits Licata, "but it also opens the door for policy manipulation." The ETC, by trying to be politically savvy, has inadvertently paved the way for anti-monorail city council members to mess with the monorail. Did their lobbyists fall asleep at the wheel in Olympia?
Though the ETC had honorable intentions, they didn't have to give away power to the city council. By law, according to ETC lawyer Hugh Spitzer, the city would have been forced to make changes to the city plan and make room for the monorail, not the other way around. "The city council would have had to incorporate the monorail by law," he says.
Another red flag, Section 3, gives the city council another opportunity to exert influence even after the plan is passed. Section 3 gives the council the power to decide who is on the future SPTA board. This makes monorail supporters nervous. "I'm very concerned about this," says Peter Sherwin, author of I-53. The whole point of I-53 was to take the monorail's fate out of the city council's hands, not put it back. Sure, the city council is into the monorail now, but what if they change their mind? If monorail costs go up, will the city council still support it? Luckily, and to the ETC's credit, the SPTA board can ultimately be created by citizen initiative if the city council does nothing after 90 days. (The SPTA initiative would only require one percent voter approval, all but assuring the SPTA would be created despite council intransigence.)
Because Seattle needs state approval to get taxing authority to fund the monorail, SB 6464 should be passed. But the ETC should do everything it can to remove sections 3 and 7, before the city council, with its untrustworthy monorail track record, gets the chance to muck it up.
