The city council is slated to vote on a bill this afternoon that would enact a memorandum of agreement between the city, county, and state, setting up a plan for construction and funding of the massively controversial tunnel option for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. If passed, the ordinance wouldn’t commit to anything that hasn’t been discussed already, but it would declare the tunnel option to be the city’s preferred replacement option.
Seattle’s commitment to covering cost overruns isn’t explicitly spelled out in the memorandum or the council bill, but both refer to last year’s state Legislature bill—which caps state spending at $2.4 billion caps toll revenue at $400 million, and puts the city on the hook to pay for any extra expenses over the budget. But the Legislature’s bill is strikingly vague about who would end up picking up this tab. Anything exceeding the $2.8 billion mark “shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel,” the state law reads.
There’s dispute over whether this provision—making Seattle taxpayers responsible for overruns on a state highway—is enforceable. But if it isn’t, why is the city council blessing it?
UPDATE:The council passed the tunnel plan unanimously.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
Why indeed. It would be one thing for our elected representatives to express a preference for the tunnel. It is quite another thing for them to bless the cost overruns portion of the bill.
Any other City in this State would have immediately gone to court over this provision. It’s deeply disappointing that our City is rolling over.
Ohhhh Will
Where are your pearls of wisdom now? I thought we have been hearing from you that the Tunnel isn’t a done deal?
Hmm?
Please do tell…
I tried to tell you guys about this a few weeks ago, actually, when it was in committee and not before the entire council.
No matter, you presume you can sneak it through – but that assumes that it won’t be stayed.
If we go forward with the tunnel, we’re going to regret it. We’ll either regret it when the cost-overruns put the squeeze on an already faltering city budget, or we’ll regret it when it gets built and we realize too late that rebuilding a freeway through downtown was the wrong thing to do.
With leadership, we could have new transit on the corridor, the right mix of improvements elsewhere to keep freight moving out of the port, and a surface redevelopment that is more than just (judging from the WSDOT diagram) acres of windy asphalt marked by occasional strips of uninspired grass for people to pass out on. But Mike McGinn is the only one at any level showing any leadership or vision.
Where does all this tunnelophobia come from? Having spent a number of years in northern Europe I can tell you that tunnels are a damn neat way of getting about. Norway is practical all tunnels. Who wants to see cars and rail anyway? But (alas) it’s axiomatic that all large municipal projects are initially hated, over-run their costs, but then the citizenry ends up using them and singing their praises; so hate away (it’s part of the process). But if the tunnel does happen, I expect all you haters to preserve that hatred! Bottle a little up, so that you can tell your grandchildren how much you hated this tunnel as they drive you through it on Thanksgiving.
Why didn’t Licata actually submit his amendments? That makes his comments empty.
What should really scare us is if the tunnel doesn’t move ahead. It may be controversial, but it is the least controversial option. Imagine if the Council was moving ahead with either another elevated or even worse , a surface option… there would be revolution in the streets.
Mr. Harrel’s comments questioning the timing and necessity of the legislation is empty so long as he votes for it.
Nice post by Timothy @1. It’s a shame we let our political discourse get reduced to these binary, black-and-white extremes. Either (A) you want to stop the tunnel or (B) you’re so gung ho on the tunnel you want to throw accountability to the wind.
Even though I believe this tunnel plan is a bad idea (and a worse idea than the original tunnel plan), I realize there are worse ideas out there (another viaduct, anyone?). And more important, I’m not quite ready to go to war to stop it at all costs. On the flip side, if I were a tunnel supporter, I’d like to think I’d have enough perspective to say, “No, I don’t want this at all costs. Let’s find a way to make absolutely certain Seattle taxpayers are not on the hook for cost overruns.”
That’s really the kind of message I’d like to hear from my elected leaders who do happen to be pro-tunnel. Is such a clear, simple, unambiguous statement just too much to ask for?
I’m guessing that Licata didn’t submit his amendments precisely because he’s in a council race, which betrays why this issue shouldn’t even be voted on today, 2 weeks prior to an election that is turning on this very issue.
Why bother.
Washington is a Slave State where the Slave Owners decide everything and even the most high falutin’ middle class person has zero to no say.
So, Harrell, put your vote where your mouth is and vote against it.
Our council is entirely spineless. No matter if you support the tunnel, they should be standing unified against the cost overruns. Instead, they’ve taken a political vote during a Mayoral election.
Shameful.
“Licata: Even if McGinn gets in, the tunnel has too much momentum behind it. I think that McGinn would end up hurting Seattle’s position with the state if he becomes really adamant. I think state legislators are tired of Seattle going back and forth on the solution.”
http://publicola.net/?p=16443
@7 – well, ralph, since not all of us are Mallahan staffers, maybe a lot of us don’t believe that the tunnel is the “least controversial” choice.
Heck, based on actual polls and actual votes, it’s the MOST controversial choice.
Other than that stupid Bridge over Elliot Bay idea.
Here’s an unoriginal thought:
Since Seattle needs to update the seawall anyway, how about we take down the dangerous viaduct, make improvements to 1-5 and increase transit in that area while improving the seawall. While all these improvements are taking place, that need to take place anyway, we can finish the tunnel study (cause it’s not even close to done), then dig the tunnel that the state wants so badly.
The state would be on the tab for all cost overruns because Seattle would have already fulfilled our obligations in waterfront improvement.
@14 Mr. Baker…
You’re right. We certainly wouldn’t want to upset the State. They might just dictate to Seattle what the preferred solution should be, and even worse, if we upset them, they might try to stick us with the cost overruns. We should play nice with them so that we don’t end up with that result.
Oh…wait…
We already got that result.
Will, please cite the “actual votes” when the populace unambiguously voted against the deep-bore tunnel project. Heck, I’m feeling generous & I’ll allow you to cite just one instance of it.
Sorry…I have to vent. 🙂
Nick Licata stated that in considering his amendments, he called the Governor’s office, AND THEY DIDN’T LIKE THEM! So, he chose not to submit them.
Ummm, Nick? You represent the City of Seattle, not the Governor, and NOT THE STATE.
Your words of protest are empty, because you voted for the measure, and chose not to submit your amendments.
@18 – I’m sorry, but the Billionaires don’t want to let you vote on that. The last time they let you vote on one of their stadiums, you voted it down, so they’re trying not to let you vote on their Billionaires Tunnel either.
But I like @16’s idea. Basically, Surface Plus Transit with part of it done already.
serotonein @18: Will, please cite the “actual votes” when the populace unambiguously voted against the deep-bore tunnel project. Heck, I’m feeling generous & I’ll allow you to cite just one instance of it.
This is a little bit like suggesting that Ralph Nader’s pathetic showings in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections should have had no bearing on the merits of his 2008 presidential bid.
But hey, I’m sure there’s some bizarro alternate Seattle where one tunnel proposal can get 20-some-% approval in a public vote and then, lo and behold, an even worse tunnel proposal could just be that much more popular.
omg, cressona actually agreed with me.
Cressona – you lost.
Mc Ginn, you are going to loose.
And we all thought Mc Ginn was going to chain himself to the bulldozer … guess not.
He is now saying he will support the tunnel….. geez. Was it all political blather? Guess so.
maybe if you read what I posted on the Times about it, you’d realize that not everything is what it appears to be.
You guys are still playing chess.
But it’s not a chess game.
So is this like a non-binding resolution, or does it have more teeth?
Look, there are three levels.
Level one is when it’s an idea.
Level two is when there are multi-governmental agreements.
Level three is when there are binding contracts between a governmental agency.
We aren’t at level 3 – cause the councilmanic bonds have a cap around $500 mill and most of that is already issued. Which means a public vote is mandatory.
And, it could easily change yet again. It usually does, at least until you get to 20 percent design.
(meant govt agency and private firms in para 4)
#26 – Willy –
You forget to say it is a state project, a state hiway, the Stte has made up its mind, the state has all the aces and the money…..
And that is the game. All the state really needs is a srong arm, a deep pocket the the will to proceed.
Duh…. and by the way, the gas tax is still gushing. And there is zero political will to pander to Seattle for 8 more years. ZERO.
It is over – of course, now they, WDOT, might modify the tunnel for more on and off … down towners will put that pressure on …. led by the new mayor.
don’t worry, we got Justice Stevens to hold it …
>:-(
Will: Your Great Leader has a put a new record on his gramophone, learn the new dance.