Pageler's Ploy
Something wasn't right. There I was at a city council meeting, nodding in agreement with conservative council member Margaret Pageler.
Then I did a little research.
At that April 1 meeting, Pageler spoke in support of tweaking legislation that came from Nick Licata's monorail committee. The legislation Licata supported gave the monorail folks, the Seattle Popular Transit Authority (SPTA), "right of way" on Seattle streets so they could build the 14-mile line. The legislation further specified: "If City-owned utilities need to be relocated for monorail construction, the City and the SPTA will negotiate an agreement on how to allocate these utility relocation costs."
Pageler, however, didn't like this idea. So she suggested different language mandating the SPTA to pay.
"The point is," Pageler said, "whether the [monorail] ballot proposal will be required to show the full costs... including... utility relocation."
But a little research showed that Pageler wasn't really concerned about full disclosure. After all, the monorail folks are already being honest with the public about utility relocation costs. Just turn to page 37 of the monorail plan released to the public on April 5. Right there in black and white, the monorail folks identify utility relocation costs. They are hiding nothing from voters.
Meanwhile, Pageler's amendment was not an attempt to divvy up costs fairly; it was an attempt to circumvent a state law that favors the monorail. According to a city staff memo, the law mandates that, when it comes to street use, transportation projects trump utilities. In other words, the city's primary purpose for a roadway is travel. This means utilities have to pay relocation costs in the wake of transportation projects like the monorail; not vice versa, as Pageler would have it.
What Pageler really seems to be up to then (she didn't return my call, by the way) is tripping up the monorail. Pageler wants to hamper the monorail by restricting the project's financial options--barring the SPTA from the city budget.
"Haven't we learned from Sound Transit that subsidizing is unfair?" Pageler asked The Stranger when we first reported her move last week.
What a hypocrite. Pageler just finished arguing in the March 15 Seattle Times that subsidies for transportation projects were a top priority. In that instance, Pageler made the case for a bridge in lower Queen Anne to help local biotech company Immunex. Pageler supported the Immunex subsidy, she said, because it was a transportation fix. Hmm... but meanwhile she doesn't support subsidies for the biggest transportation fix of all, the monorail (approved by voters twice now)? By the way, those voters mandated that the city kick in between $125 and $200 million for the monorail.
Pageler isn't against city funding for transportation projects. She's just against the monorail.
