It's going to be a fun debate when "the region" of Seattle is put in the position of arguing that it is not benefiting from the tunnel.

The minute this officially goes over budget, the lawsuits will begin to fly. There is no question that this will all end up at the state supreme court before it's over.

@2

Watch Gregoire's law firm clean up in those lawsuits.

Here's a deal Olympia: Seattle will pay for all the costs of Bertha if we get to keep all the marijuana revenues from marijuana purchased only in Seattle in perpetuity

Mayor Murray sold us down the river and now Seattle taxpayers will be hit with tax surcharges to pay for an insane Tunnel project 70% of us voted AGAINST.

Time to cancel.

We're talking BILLIONS.

Do the Math!

Sadly @3 and @4 tied for the Big Bertha Flustercluck Win.

I look forward to bills being introduced where all future cost overruns on WSDOT projects are to be borne by those in the county of the project. And let's just do that for all state revenues too, county-by-county.

Ferry County's 7,500 people (whose kids lead the state in anti-vaxx personal exemptions, btw) better think long and hard about taking on any big projects.

i can never forget calling into 94.9 when steve sher was hosting holden (i think) and what's her face from the times (balter i think) and she was crowing about whether we would accept the vote submarining the monorail. so i called to ask her if she supported the vote on the tunnel, and she smugly insisted that this is a "different tunnel entirely" since it's deep bore instead of "cut and cover". anyhow, i can't get over what a bitchy smug condescending attitude she had. all the tunnel pushers were assholes. they undermined mcginn, killed the monorail, fucked us all to build stadiums on our dime, stole money from a lander overpass and the port/rail industrial area to make mercer pretty for allentown. and they were dicks to us all along the way.

anyhow the final assement here is that murray and chop specifically were lying either to seattle voters or the state legislature or both when they did the dirty work for the seattle money insiders who wanted the tunnel. either way they're lying pricks and i can't understand how so many voters are hoodwinked into thinking they're gret progressives who deserve our votes to continue in office...

@5 Not so fast with the numbers. 70% voted against the tunnel? Please to explain where you dredged up those numbers.

100% of me voted against it.

@8: "They" did not kill the monorail. The goofy amateurs who promoted and staffed the monorail failed to do professional research on the funding source. When the shortfall became apparent, the goofballs couldn't figure out a better funding scheme and the voters pulled the plug.

@1 "It's going to be a fun debate when 'the region" of Seattle is put in the position of arguing that it is not benefiting from the tunnel."

Assuming the tunnel is ever finished, that is.

"I don't believe we can trust the governor to keep promises to protect us. I don't trust the Legislature, either, to protect us from cost overruns."
--Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, October 29, 2010

Why all the hate for the "Tunnel of Fail"?

Best headline at the 2024 Boston Summer Olympics: "Seattle's Big Bertha Dig still stuck, city bankrupt"

Point of order: The law does not say "region" at all. It mentions Seattle and property owners by proper noun.

"Any costs in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel." RCW 47.01.402 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?…)

Of course, one could argue that only the waterfront property owners benefit from tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with a tunnel. That should be a fun sell.

The law throwing this on Seattle voters is a blatant violation of the state constitution, if it even gets to that point.

But keep up the misleading hysteria. Mouthbreathers like WiS are eating it up.

A lot of whining by Gregoire ("watch me") voters. Are you still watching?

@17 - NIce find. That's incredible. I don't imagine those property owners have their signatures on that. Quite a cluster.

Seattle Tunnel Partners would be wise to hold off overrunning their budget until someone with a checkbook says "go ahead." The tunnel will be finished, but my grandchildren will cut the ribbons at the opening ceremonies.

McGinn's gut instinct told him that the money, and who pays it, wasn't the real problem with the bore tunnel (in unstable waterfront soils made infinitely more unstable). During his mayoral campaign, he learned Seattle's monied interests have no concern other than money and the making of it. Mike devised a campaign against the bore tunnel these mouth-breathing neanderthal motherfuckers might understand. Mike was wrong. Saving the world from the ravages of industrial pollution will NOT stand in the way of profiteering assholes enjoying mile high fucks on the way to oblivion.

I miss Mayor McGinn :-(

"Any costs in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel." RCW 47.01.402 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?…)

It states "Seattle area" not "Seattle," which are categorically different things. Seattle is Seattle. Seattle area would have Seattle as the point from which the area begins. It does not define the limits of the associated area.

Maybe there is additional language in the RCW that defines "area," if not I'd say this is quite a loophole. One big enough even, for an entire tunnel to fit through.

Let's see. I'm a property owner in Seattle, but the tunnel has no exits downtown. So how exactly does it benefit me?

Let's see. I'm a property owner in Seattle, but the tunnel has no exits downtown. So how exactly does it benefit me?

I've never driven on I-90. So how exactly does it benefit me?

@9,
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200…
NO, I DO NOT PREFER THE 105194 69.65%
SURFACE-TUNNEL HYBRID
ALTERNATIVE

@11 after what was it 3 votes of the public for a monorail the gov finally conceded to actually follow the voters intentions. when the funding was tight they easily could have stepped up with small amount of additional revenue to get the financing to 30y vs the 50y. but no, instead mayor 5 pennies threatened to cancel permits and they spun the project by adding the sum of all debt payments with no correction for inflation as the total cost figure (which is like saying my 275k house costs 720k because our mortgage payments are 2k/mo).

this is not unlike how they pushed the tunnel... they shoved it down our throats after the 70% no vote, put in lots of money and planing then told us to vote whether to kill it or take it since there was no longer any other option. and once again the voters caved and failed to call their bluff.

in all this, please keep in mind that the "seattle process" is merely a bullshit slander that rich and powerful folks use to marginalize and ridicule popular opposition to their projects that benefit their private interests at public expense.

i used gov as short for government not governor^^^, prob poor choice my apologies...

Fight! Fight! Fight!
@BerthaDeBlues

The City of Seattle needs to be on the record saying that they want this project shut down immediately. Then maybe we'll have a chance of not getting financially hammered in the ensuing litigation when the tunnel goes 2-3x over the initial budget.

It'll be lucky if the thing is ever finished.

It's "The News Tribune," hasn't been called the Tacoma News Tribune in years.