Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

McGinn, Council at Odds on City's "Official" Tunnel Position

Today, the city council adopted the city’s official legislative agenda for 2010. On the list: official city opposition to doing anything that could jeopardize an agreement between the city and the state signed earlier this year. That agreement puts the city on the hook for any cost overruns associated with the tunnel.

As we mentioned in today’s Morning Fizz, Council members worry that reopening discussions on the tunnel will threaten the entire project, because many legislators only voted for the project because it kept the state off the hook for cost overruns. Reluctant tunnel supporters, like house transportation chair Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-41) and her senate counterpart, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10), seem certain to oppose any proposal to make the state pay for overruns.

Of course, there is at least one prominent city official on record opposing that agreement: Mayor-elect Mike McGinn, who had no say in crafting the city’s tunnel-friendly legislative agenda.

Judging from comments his administration made this afternoon, McGinn is prepared to press legislators to revisit the cost overruns decision this session, in direct conflict with the city’s “official” agenda.

New McGinn staffer Ethan Raup—rumored to be in the mix for Team McGinn’s political shop—who said he was speaking on behalf of the McGinn admin at the council hearing this afternoon said, “Mayor-elect McGinn believes that it would be irresponsible to get to the point of no return on the tunnel without resolving who will pay for cost overruns.”

House speaker Rep. Frank Chopp (D-43), who opposes the tunnel, did not return a call asking whether he would support a McGinn-led effort to revisit the tunnel decision. And McGinn media staffer Aaron Pickus responded to an email asking whether he would support revisiting the tunnel decision by sending us a copy of Raup’s statement.




  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Stacy

    No one wants to pay for it, we’re not allowed to ask any tough questions, we can’t figure out who’s paying for the (likely inevitable) cost overruns, and we haven’t even completed the EIS yet (you know, the one that doesn’t even include any alternatives for consideration); what the hell is going on here?

    Is it too much to ask from our Council to have them actually stand up for the interests of our City? Whatever happened to all of the state’s commitments from the “agreement”?

    Did they forget that they’re the SEATTLE City Council, not the Deep-bore tunnel at all costs no matter what negative impacts it might have on our City and you better not ask any questions because then powerful people might get mad Council? Sad.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Perfect Voter

    I’m still waiting for some legal precedent, some explanation how a public agency can lawfully slough off cost overruns on an unwilling third party.

    If this arrangement is allowed to move forward, then the agency, WSDOT, has no incentives whatsoever to tightly manage the project. Why should they bother when somebody else (Seattle City taxpayers) will be picking up the tab?

    If the City of Seattle doesn’t file suit over this travesty, city taxpayers should.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Francis

    For the millionth time: Read the bill.
    The amendment in question says the Legislature wants property owners who benefit from the project to pay the overage.
    That’s language for a LID that would raise property taxes around the area of the project.
    It’s not “the city” or “Seattle residents” or anything like that.
    And @2, sure, it’s not a legally binding thing the city has to obey.
    But it IS a very strong signal from the Legislature: We will pay $2.4 B, nothing more — and here’s how we think you should get the rest.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Raskin Flackers

    Jesus, we got us a Mayor Moonbeam.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • Perfect Voter

    Francis @3, the LID is a local government funding mechanism, not one that the state can force a municipality to impose on unwilling property owners.

    It would be irresponsible for this project to move forward without fixing this mess. Otherwise, WSDOT goes merrily on its way and overruns accumulate, and the city, because “it’s not a legally binding thing” decides to not force an LID on benefitted property owners.

    What then??????

    WSDOT points at the City. The City says, quite accurately: “but it’s not our project; we had no control over it and no say in its management”. And the contractors saying: We did the work, now pay us or we stop working!”

    Recipe for disaster.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • TobyinFremont

    Perfect Voter @ 5, I thought I saw a post a while back pointing out that LIDs can in fact be done without landowner consent. At least under this particular legislation. Sorry, I don’t have time to look it up, but someone should confirm (or deny) that key operative fact.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    They can be done without landowner consent. I don’t think Perfect Voter is arguing that.
    The idea that landowners have to sign off just crops up because that’s how cities usually market the LID process — something that property owners ask for.
    But the government can impose a property tax without asking.
    @5 – obviously. You think this hasn’t been talked about at those levels? It clearly was part of some agreement, even though not spelled out in public.
    The rest of the state doesn’t want to chip in more than $2.4B in gas tax revenue. It’s that simple.
    And if it’s not enforceable — which it apparently isn’t — then the Legislature isn’t “forcing” the city to do anything. It’s just leaving a trail of bread crumbs to its preferred solution.
    Oh, and it’s also probably meant to distract people and/or scuttle the deal. Mission accomplished I guess.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Francis

    The main point in the whole mess is this:
    The Legislature has said that it is paying $2.4 B in gas taxes, and not a penny more.
    If the project doesn’t get a move on soon, there are plenty of legislators who would like a crack at that pot of money for projects in their districts.
    That has been the longstanding mantra.

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Timothy

    @9 Francis…

    You keep trotting out this canard that the language merely suggests a LID. And, as has been repeated to you several times, the State cannot mandate a LID. Should a taxing district decide that they’d like to implement a LID, then so be it.

    But, putting the language in the State legislation for a State project that looks like LID language makes it no less a canard. Again, the State can’t mandate a LID. The language in question is what some call “unenforceable” and I”ll call illegal.

    …oh, and City Council? We the Citizens of Seattle hope that you’re watching out for our interests on this. Are you?

  • Wells

    The Deep-bore tunnel is a terrible mistake. The better tunnel option is WSDOT’s 2008 Scenario ‘G’ 4-lane Cut-n-cover for these critically important reasons:

    - it accommodates regional traffic much better
    - it produces the strongest seawall and most stable Alaskan Way road and plaza
    - it significantly reduces traffic on Alaskan Way (and Mercer Street)
    - produces more construction jobs
    - safer evacuation plan
    - more resistant to earthquake damage
    - may cost hundreds of millions less

    The Deep-bore tunnel has one advantage:
    - less inconvenience for cruise line patrons and waterfront tourist economy. That’s it.

    In 2007, the 4-lane Cut-n-cover was called ‘Tunnelite’ and in the March vote was not fully vetted. Up til then, Seattle voters were presented only with 6-lane cut-n-cover tunnel plans which forecast too much contruction impact and was voted down for that reason.

    However, WSDOT’s 2008 Scenario ‘G’ 4-lane Cut-n-cover Tunnel allows the AWV to remain in place up til rebuilding the Lower Belltown segment. SR-99 traffic then is diverted via Broad Street onto a probably permanent (and desirable) bridge over the railroad tracks and enters the completed tunnel at Pike Street for a year or so. The seawall is by that time rebuilt and much of the plaza finished too.

    The main years of trench construction, dug in 2-block segments from the south, those too are a manageable construction process. Traffic is diverted under the AWV, around the trench and returned to the surface above completed segments.

    The ’strongest’ seawall and ‘most stable’ Alaskan Way road and plaza are only possible with the cut-n-cover. The cut-n-cover handles the Ballard-bound traffic, about 40,000 vehicles daily or 2500 per hour that with the Deep-bore will be dumped onto the new Alaskan Way with 15-20 stoplights. That much more traffic there is sure to produce gridlock all day long.

    Some thousands of this traffic is ‘Crunican-planned’ to be diverted via a reconfigured Mercer Street (including 2-lane Mercer Place) to the Deep-bore portal on Aurora and on to I-5 as if there isn’t already too much traffic on Mercer. Lower Queen Anne residents are completely unaware of Crunican’s terrible “Mercer West” scheme.

    SDOT’s design for Alaskan Way with either tunnel is terrible! The early ‘pre-Crunican’ design that included a frontage road on the east side is necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Many respected architects consider the wide plaza disproportionate and it may ultimately become makeshift or even permanent parking.

    The cut-n-cover produces many more jobs than the Deep-bore tunnel. It has a better, safer evacuation plan in an emergency. A segmented bore tunnel is weak at every joint and is thus less stable in an earthquake than a ‘box’ cut/cover tunnel. The cut/cover may cost hundreds of millions less, but that’s debateable.

    Mayor McGinn’s opposition to the Deep-bore will be supported by anyone with the sense to recognize Seattle is being bamboozled again by corrupt transportation planning department heads. Good grief.

  • Wells

    The Deep-bore tunnel is a terrible mistake. The better tunnel option is WSDOT’s 2008 Scenario ‘G’ 4-lane Cut-n-cover for these critically important reasons:

    - it accommodates regional traffic much better
    - it produces the strongest seawall and most stable Alaskan Way road and plaza
    - it significantly reduces traffic on Alaskan Way (and Mercer Street)
    - produces more construction jobs
    - safer evacuation plan
    - more resistant to earthquake damage
    - may cost hundreds of millions less

    The Deep-bore tunnel has one advantage:
    - less inconvenience for cruise line patrons and waterfront tourist economy. That’s it.

    In 2007, the 4-lane Cut-n-cover was called ‘Tunnelite’ and in the March vote was not fully vetted. Up til then, Seattle voters were presented only with 6-lane cut-n-cover tunnel plans which forecast too much contruction impact and was voted down for that reason.

    However, WSDOT’s 2008 Scenario ‘G’ 4-lane Cut-n-cover Tunnel allows the AWV to remain in place up til rebuilding the Lower Belltown segment. SR-99 traffic then is diverted via Broad Street onto a probably permanent (and desirable) bridge over the railroad tracks and enters the completed tunnel at Pike Street for a year or so. The seawall is by that time rebuilt and much of the plaza finished too.

    The main years of trench construction, dug in 2-block segments from the south, those too are a manageable construction process. Traffic is diverted under the AWV, around the trench and returned to the surface above completed segments.

    The ’strongest’ seawall and ‘most stable’ Alaskan Way road and plaza are only possible with the cut-n-cover. The cut-n-cover handles the Ballard-bound traffic, about 40,000 vehicles daily or 2500 per hour that with the Deep-bore will be dumped onto the new Alaskan Way with 15-20 stoplights. That much more traffic there is sure to produce gridlock all day long.

    Some thousands of this traffic is ‘Crunican-planned’ to be diverted via a reconfigured Mercer Street (including 2-lane Mercer Place) to the Deep-bore portal on Aurora and on to I-5 as if there isn’t already too much traffic on Mercer. Lower Queen Anne residents are completely unaware of Crunican’s terrible “Mercer West” scheme.

    SDOT’s design for Alaskan Way with either tunnel is terrible! The early ‘pre-Crunican’ design that included a frontage road on the east side is necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Many respected architects consider the wide plaza disproportionate and it may ultimately become makeshift or even permanent parking.

    The cut-n-cover produces many more jobs than the Deep-bore tunnel. It has a better, safer evacuation plan in an emergency. A segmented bore tunnel is weak at every joint and is thus less stable in an earthquake than a ‘box’ cut/cover tunnel. The cut/cover may cost hundreds of millions less, but that’s debateable.

    Mayor McGinn’s opposition to the Deep-bore will be supported by anyone with the sense to recognize Seattle is being bamboozled again by corrupt transportation planning department heads. Good grief.

  • Wells

    Picture the GIANT 54′ diameter deep-bore tunnel in terms of its ’segmented’ design. Each (say 10′) segment is further segmented in curved concrete pieces that fitted together form a 170′ circumference tube, (say “ten” 17′ x 10′ pieces).

    Even though this GIANT tube is strengthened with reinforced concrete walls, road and ceiling, it has innumerable weak points that could fail in an major earthquake. This GIANT tube is too close to the foundations of Seattle towers to chance it. McGinn is right to oppose it for many reasons including that one.

    The surface/transit option is actually possible, but not at this time. Eventually, cross-county traffic could be reduced to levels that a surface boulevard could handle. However, Seattle’s transition to regional planning principles is undermined by corrupt department heads serving commerical business interests instead of the public good. Grace Crunican pretended to support the surface/transit option only to win the favor of gullible environmentalists. It’s possible, but not without a commitment to regional planning, growth and development that reduces VMT and increases mass transit use. I still believe monorail is the better Rapid Transit option for West Seattle and Ballard, though the route north is better via Westlake than Interbay.

  • Wells

    Picture the GIANT 54′ diameter deep-bore tunnel in terms of its ’segmented’ design. Each (say 10′) segment is further segmented in curved concrete pieces that fitted together form a 170′ circumference tube, (say “ten” 17′ x 10′ pieces).

    Even though this GIANT tube is strengthened with reinforced concrete walls, road and ceiling, it has innumerable weak points that could fail in an major earthquake. This GIANT tube is too close to the foundations of Seattle towers to chance it. McGinn is right to oppose it for many reasons including that one.

    The surface/transit option is actually possible, but not at this time. Eventually, cross-county traffic could be reduced to levels that a surface boulevard could handle. However, Seattle’s transition to regional planning principles is undermined by corrupt department heads serving commerical business interests instead of the public good. Grace Crunican pretended to support the surface/transit option only to win the favor of gullible environmentalists. It’s possible, but not without a commitment to regional planning, growth and development that reduces VMT and increases mass transit use. I still believe monorail is the better Rapid Transit option for West Seattle and Ballard, though the route north is better via Westlake than Interbay.

  • African

    This issue needs to go to infront of the voters. The voters alone can decide what path do we need to take. The city council need to listen to the citizens of Seattle. The Tunnel is too expensive for us unless the state is going to foot the over-run-cost.

  • African

    This issue needs to go to infront of the voters. The voters alone can decide what path do we need to take. The city council need to listen to the citizens of Seattle. The Tunnel is too expensive for us unless the state is going to foot the over-run-cost.

  • sgiffy

    @3 Exactly! The state has said here is 2.4 billion. If it costs more we are not paying. If there are cost overruns the city does not have to pay, they could cancel the project. At that point it would be a battle between the city and the state to see who blinks first.

    I am all for fighting to get the state to pay more, but the tunnel is well worth the cost of a LID.

  • sgiffy

    @3 Exactly! The state has said here is 2.4 billion. If it costs more we are not paying. If there are cost overruns the city does not have to pay, they could cancel the project. At that point it would be a battle between the city and the state to see who blinks first.

    I am all for fighting to get the state to pay more, but the tunnel is well worth the cost of a LID.

  • just

    deciding this now seems like the adult thing to do. waiting until the after you start digging this thing is recipe for financial meltdown.

  • just

    deciding this now seems like the adult thing to do. waiting until the after you start digging this thing is recipe for financial meltdown.

  • sarah68

    The tunnel went in front of the voters in 2007. They said no.

  • sarah68

    The tunnel went in front of the voters in 2007. They said no.

  • JoshMahar

    To be honest, McGinn is probably pretty happy about this (as are some of the rest of us). Since there is no way the state legislature will give this project more money, by sticking to a no-cost-overruns stand he might effectively get a no-tunnel solution without actually opposing the tunnel.

  • JoshMahar

    To be honest, McGinn is probably pretty happy about this (as are some of the rest of us). Since there is no way the state legislature will give this project more money, by sticking to a no-cost-overruns stand he might effectively get a no-tunnel solution without actually opposing the tunnel.

  • sgiffy

    @15 Well technically they said no to every option since it was a pretty stupid election.

  • sgiffy

    @15 Well technically they said no to every option since it was a pretty stupid election.

  • susieQ

    Why would Seattle voters get to decide how a state agency spends state dollars to replace a state highway? If there is a public vote of any kind it would need to be a state wide vote. A public vote would be stupid though because the decision has been made, an agreement has been signed, and the project is already moving forward. Thankfully after 7 years of Seattle dithering, the Legislature moved forward.

  • susieQ

    Why would Seattle voters get to decide how a state agency spends state dollars to replace a state highway? If there is a public vote of any kind it would need to be a state wide vote. A public vote would be stupid though because the decision has been made, an agreement has been signed, and the project is already moving forward. Thankfully after 7 years of Seattle dithering, the Legislature moved forward.

  • sarah68

    But there was a vote and they did say no. It doesn’t matter to the state, but they said no, so there’s no point in putting something before the “public” again.

    I don’t understand why the City would have any say-so since it’s a State road. Has that been explained somewhere? I-5 runs through Seattle; did Seattle get a say-so with the feds on that?

  • sarah68

    But there was a vote and they did say no. It doesn’t matter to the state, but they said no, so there’s no point in putting something before the “public” again.

    I don’t understand why the City would have any say-so since it’s a State road. Has that been explained somewhere? I-5 runs through Seattle; did Seattle get a say-so with the feds on that?

  • SuperSteve

    What’s the big deal about Seattle paying for cost over-runs on the tunnel – or any other AWV replacement option?

    At least the state is chipping in the vast majority of the cost.

    The second Tacoma Narrow Bridge – part of a state highway – is being 100% funded with tolls paid by local users who overwhelmingly voted against the bridge. It passed only because people in Seattle got to vote on it and figured “what the hell, I never cross the Narrows…”

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

  • SuperSteve

    What’s the big deal about Seattle paying for cost over-runs on the tunnel – or any other AWV replacement option?

    At least the state is chipping in the vast majority of the cost.

    The second Tacoma Narrow Bridge – part of a state highway – is being 100% funded with tolls paid by local users who overwhelmingly voted against the bridge. It passed only because people in Seattle got to vote on it and figured “what the hell, I never cross the Narrows…”

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

  • David

    I still want to learn what the level of support among downtown property-owners is for an LID. Has anyone seen a poll on that? I imagine that the costs would be shared by property owners as far south as King Street and as far north as Battery Street, and from the waterfront up to perhaps 2nd Avenue.

    They’d have to vote in support of the LID. Given the amount of property in that area, how much will each have to pay?

  • David

    I still want to learn what the level of support among downtown property-owners is for an LID. Has anyone seen a poll on that? I imagine that the costs would be shared by property owners as far south as King Street and as far north as Battery Street, and from the waterfront up to perhaps 2nd Avenue.

    They’d have to vote in support of the LID. Given the amount of property in that area, how much will each have to pay?

  • geology 101

    for a city that has committed to implementing a bicycle master plan, pedestrian master plan, expansion of transit and reduction in GHGs to make propping up a house-of-cards, auto-oriented infrastructure project while asking the citizens of seattle to bend over on cost overruns…as they say on saturday night live’s weekend update…REALLY, CITY COUNCIL?! REALLY?!?

  • geology 101

    for a city that has committed to implementing a bicycle master plan, pedestrian master plan, expansion of transit and reduction in GHGs to make propping up a house-of-cards, auto-oriented infrastructure project while asking the citizens of seattle to bend over on cost overruns…as they say on saturday night live’s weekend update…REALLY, CITY COUNCIL?! REALLY?!?

  • Wells

    Sarah68@15, The voters in March 2007 had up til then been presented with several 6-lane cut/cover tunnel designs which forecast extensive construction disruption and voted it down for that reason. Nevermind that it was a 4-lane cut/cover dubbed ‘Tunnelite’, it was not fully vetted until a year later as WSDOT’s Scenario ‘G’ which allows the AWV to remain in place for most of the cut/cover construction thus significantly reducing the impact.

  • Wells

    Sarah68@15, The voters in March 2007 had up til then been presented with several 6-lane cut/cover tunnel designs which forecast extensive construction disruption and voted it down for that reason. Nevermind that it was a 4-lane cut/cover dubbed ‘Tunnelite’, it was not fully vetted until a year later as WSDOT’s Scenario ‘G’ which allows the AWV to remain in place for most of the cut/cover construction thus significantly reducing the impact.

  • West Seattle Waiter

    Mayor Moonbeam is screwing up already and he isn’t even Mayor yet.

    So I guess the “tunnel pivot” — was just a “truth pivot”

  • West Seattle Waiter

    Mayor Moonbeam is screwing up already and he isn’t even Mayor yet.

    So I guess the “tunnel pivot” — was just a “truth pivot”

  • Hey Francis

    what kind of property owner group is going to accept responsibility for cost overruns on a megaproject that could end up being one billlllllionnnnnnnn dollars?

    Every single lender to those property owners would yank their loans. Every owner would be saddled with a mega assessment. Disaster. And before all this happens the whole thing simply would not be financeable and nobody would buy the bonds because they, unlike you, would want all the answers and the math done in advance.

    Remember how fractions work? You keep trying to say it’s not an issue because only a small group of owners would benefit….well the smalelr the group carrying the burden, the more the burden on each member of the group, and the more they will REVOLT. Your whole notion that a billion dollar exposure can be carried by 10,000 property owners is stupid as well as absurd. You seem to recognize that the majority fo Seattle voters if asked would reject putting this burden on THEM, but your attempt to dodge the issue by saying the LID will only affect a few people ignores the reality that the smaller the number carrying the billion dollar exposure, the less able they are to carry it.

    Show us the math, take a billion bucks, how many owners, total real estate value they have , how much of a burden is a billion dollar exposure as % of their total value (which recently declined 30% btw?)

  • Hey Francis

    what kind of property owner group is going to accept responsibility for cost overruns on a megaproject that could end up being one billlllllionnnnnnnn dollars?

    Every single lender to those property owners would yank their loans. Every owner would be saddled with a mega assessment. Disaster. And before all this happens the whole thing simply would not be financeable and nobody would buy the bonds because they, unlike you, would want all the answers and the math done in advance.

    Remember how fractions work? You keep trying to say it’s not an issue because only a small group of owners would benefit….well the smalelr the group carrying the burden, the more the burden on each member of the group, and the more they will REVOLT. Your whole notion that a billion dollar exposure can be carried by 10,000 property owners is stupid as well as absurd. You seem to recognize that the majority fo Seattle voters if asked would reject putting this burden on THEM, but your attempt to dodge the issue by saying the LID will only affect a few people ignores the reality that the smaller the number carrying the billion dollar exposure, the less able they are to carry it.

    Show us the math, take a billion bucks, how many owners, total real estate value they have , how much of a burden is a billion dollar exposure as % of their total value (which recently declined 30% btw?)

  • Brent

    Sarah68,

    You missed the Gregoire/Ron Judd talking point #6:

    The tunnel we voted no to was a different tunnel.

    This tunnel costs more, has no exits inside downtown, and has fewer lanes. Ergo, it would get more votes.

    and talking point #9:

    Only the tunnel can allow the viaduct to stay open longer. But, (talking point #4) blame the environmentalists for the viaduct still being open, when we all know it could come crashing down tomorrow.

    Ignore the fact that transit is being built as the replacement for the viaduct’s capacity as we speak, without having to tear it down. Ignore that bus tunnel. That doesn’t count. *Those* people are not in cars, so they don’t count. Moving cars is what matters. Ignore how much capacity has already been replaced. That was done *before* 2009.

    Don’t forget talking point #11: When all your arguments fall flat, call the politician you are targetting (whether it be Joe Mallahan, who Labor went after very uncivilly before the primary election, or Mike McGinn) names. And do it under several different blogging pseudonyms, so it looks like more than one high-level state employee putting out snarky retorts on taxpayer computers and taxpayer time. I hope you are posting from home, Ron Judd!

  • Brent

    Sarah68,

    You missed the Gregoire/Ron Judd talking point #6:

    The tunnel we voted no to was a different tunnel.

    This tunnel costs more, has no exits inside downtown, and has fewer lanes. Ergo, it would get more votes.

    and talking point #9:

    Only the tunnel can allow the viaduct to stay open longer. But, (talking point #4) blame the environmentalists for the viaduct still being open, when we all know it could come crashing down tomorrow.

    Ignore the fact that transit is being built as the replacement for the viaduct’s capacity as we speak, without having to tear it down. Ignore that bus tunnel. That doesn’t count. *Those* people are not in cars, so they don’t count. Moving cars is what matters. Ignore how much capacity has already been replaced. That was done *before* 2009.

    Don’t forget talking point #11: When all your arguments fall flat, call the politician you are targetting (whether it be Joe Mallahan, who Labor went after very uncivilly before the primary election, or Mike McGinn) names. And do it under several different blogging pseudonyms, so it looks like more than one high-level state employee putting out snarky retorts on taxpayer computers and taxpayer time. I hope you are posting from home, Ron Judd!

  • beef

    no, really read the bill. seattle area can mean a whole lot of things. you could interpret it to mean the whole puget sound or anyone in the state that depends on seattle to transport goods/services/

    Bill 5768

    Sec 1 (6)b lines 23-26

    23 costs shall be financed with toll revenue. Any costs in excess of two
    24 billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners
    25 in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing
    26 viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.

  • beef

    no, really read the bill. seattle area can mean a whole lot of things. you could interpret it to mean the whole puget sound or anyone in the state that depends on seattle to transport goods/services/

    Bill 5768

    Sec 1 (6)b lines 23-26

    23 costs shall be financed with toll revenue. Any costs in excess of two
    24 billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners
    25 in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing
    26 viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.

  • sgiffy

    @25 Taking your numbers, which are probably high on the overrun and low on the number of property owners we get a hundred thousand a piece. Now this is all financed by bonds so lets put that over 30 years and we get about 3300 bucks per year. And that is absolute worst case. If it was the ‘Seattle area’ you’re probably talking more like 3 or 4 hundred thousand property owners minimum which equals about 100 bucks a year on the high end.

  • sgiffy

    @25 Taking your numbers, which are probably high on the overrun and low on the number of property owners we get a hundred thousand a piece. Now this is all financed by bonds so lets put that over 30 years and we get about 3300 bucks per year. And that is absolute worst case. If it was the ‘Seattle area’ you’re probably talking more like 3 or 4 hundred thousand property owners minimum which equals about 100 bucks a year on the high end.

  • Perfect Voter

    Toby @6, Francis @7, citations please showing where in law it’s allowed for the state, or a city of the first class, to impose a Local Improvement District on unwilling property owners.

  • Perfect Voter

    Toby @6, Francis @7, citations please showing where in law it’s allowed for the state, or a city of the first class, to impose a Local Improvement District on unwilling property owners.

  • sgiffy

    @29 show where it is not. The state has taxing authority and does not require your consent. I am not sure if there is any case law knocking down taxes only in a specific region but I doubt there is.

  • sgiffy

    @29 show where it is not. The state has taxing authority and does not require your consent. I am not sure if there is any case law knocking down taxes only in a specific region but I doubt there is.

  • Perfect Voter

    Sigh. This has nothing to do with the state’s general taxing authority. The State Constitution says that taxes must be uniform, sgiffy, and LID assessments by definition are not uniform — thus the consent.

  • Perfect Voter

    Sigh. This has nothing to do with the state’s general taxing authority. The State Constitution says that taxes must be uniform, sgiffy, and LID assessments by definition are not uniform — thus the consent.

  • sgiffy

    @31, right but the state can create a special district and give it taxing authority and can do so without local consent.

  • sgiffy

    @31, right but the state can create a special district and give it taxing authority and can do so without local consent.

  • antigiffy

    no dummy, real estate taxes have to be uniform, if the state can create a special district and impose taxes without consent then that constitutional caluse is meaningless. And I’d run for city council on a platform of imposing taxes on Laurelhurst and Magnolia Boulevard and we’d be able to have a nice communist policy. But that’s WHY that constitutional clause is in there. Your “show where it is not ” comment was answered: the uniformity clause. Your comment at @32 simply ignores this with an incorrect suggestion that the State can do an end run around the uniformity clause at will, which is either hopelessly ignorant or deliberately deceptive.

    The bottom line is this DBT has no finance plan and in the end a billion dollar overrun being spread over 30,000 nearby property owners is not acceptble to them, if spread over 600,000 people in Seattle it’s not acceptable to them (51% just voted for Mcginn, duh), and if spread over 2 illion in the Puget Sound area thru the elastic and totally undefined statutory language it’s not acceptable to them either.

    You know how we really know this?

    There isn’t one elected official who’s out there with the boundaries of who will be taxed and who will not be, and with the amount of the tax, saying “look at me! I support this tax so we can build this great DBT! Please re-elect me because I am leading the way on this vital piece of infrastructure!”

    Nope, instead they are all hiding from us WHO will pay, HOW MUCH they will pay, and WHEN they will pay.

    Bopttom line is this is a scam and a shell game similar to AIG.

  • antigiffy

    no dummy, real estate taxes have to be uniform, if the state can create a special district and impose taxes without consent then that constitutional caluse is meaningless. And I’d run for city council on a platform of imposing taxes on Laurelhurst and Magnolia Boulevard and we’d be able to have a nice communist policy. But that’s WHY that constitutional clause is in there. Your “show where it is not ” comment was answered: the uniformity clause. Your comment at @32 simply ignores this with an incorrect suggestion that the State can do an end run around the uniformity clause at will, which is either hopelessly ignorant or deliberately deceptive.

    The bottom line is this DBT has no finance plan and in the end a billion dollar overrun being spread over 30,000 nearby property owners is not acceptble to them, if spread over 600,000 people in Seattle it’s not acceptable to them (51% just voted for Mcginn, duh), and if spread over 2 illion in the Puget Sound area thru the elastic and totally undefined statutory language it’s not acceptable to them either.

    You know how we really know this?

    There isn’t one elected official who’s out there with the boundaries of who will be taxed and who will not be, and with the amount of the tax, saying “look at me! I support this tax so we can build this great DBT! Please re-elect me because I am leading the way on this vital piece of infrastructure!”

    Nope, instead they are all hiding from us WHO will pay, HOW MUCH they will pay, and WHEN they will pay.

    Bopttom line is this is a scam and a shell game similar to AIG.