McGinn Outfoxes Council President Conlin

Conlin's days in Seattle politically are numbered if he doesn't reverse course. The tunnel, yay or nay–at this point, it's secondary. The cost overruns are a situation only a complete fool would endorse.

If the tunnel is going to be built, it's INEXCUSABLE for a Seattle city official to support the local Seattle taxpayers being on the hook for this. If a state bridge in Yakima went over costs, would we require that Yakima rather than the state pick up costs? Preposterous.

Richard Conlin: unless your goal is to commit career suicide, change course. If the tunnel is meant to be, it's meant to be without you and I getting raped on the legal possibility of cost overruns.

Public process is not obstruction. I can't recall a single development that Conlin has blocked or obstructed, can you?

Conlin helped to block the Georgetown waste transfer station.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/318861_gtown07.html

It's been 30 minutes and nobody's mentioned the monorail.

Sorry, but your headline carries the tone of desperation.

Look. Government, and politics, is so much more than dueling sound bites or affixing future blame for something that may or may not happen, and may or may not be remembered.. Sure, McGinn scores on a verbal jab.

Conlin has 7 or 8 VOTES behind him on the Council. That's known as a
knockout.

Ross Kane Warm Beach

Call it how ever you want to… But in my book… Our mayor McGinn is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Sorry, but this is the worst piece of analysis I've ever read on this site, or anywhere in a long time. It full of all kinds of leaps and gaps that favor the home team of the local paper that amounts to more cheerleading than anything else.

I get it you are with McGinn on opposition to the tunnel, but this is no slam dunk for either McGinn or Conlin. Yes, McGinn has a bit of basis for some sort or narrative he can flog for the next three years, but its going to be a long three years, he is going to get as good as he gives, and people will fatigue. Don't forget, this Mayor has a credibility issue it has not rippened yet, but its there. Bushnell and Flip Flop – can you trust Mike McGinn?

I am puzzled why McGinn thinks that building the tunnel will somehow increase CO2 emissions, and/or that not building it will somehow decrease CO2 emissions. Realistically, existing traffic volumes on SR-99 will likely remain constant, or perhaps increase somewhat with the growing metro area population until we run out of oil and driving becomes prohibitive for most people. Fortunately or unfortunately, oil depletion won't occur for at least another couple of decades.

Meanwhile, public transportation just doesn't cut it for a lot of the trips people need to take because it takes too freaking long to get from point A to point B. Maybe someday we'll have a truly functional mass transit system on par with those of NYC or San Francisco, but again, such a system would take decades to build. Meanwhile, Metro is cutting bus service it is highly doubtful that building new streetcar lines and bike trails will replace lost bus service.

It's too bad McGinn can't visualize how long it would take to modify Seattle's surface streets and I-5 to handle the 90,000 vehicle trips currently carried by the viaduct. A lot of us can visualize it, and it isn't a pretty picture. In addition he doesn't seem to get that YEARS of design, permitting and construction would needed to adapt I-5 and surface streets to handle the extra load–more years than his remaining time in office.

I guess McGinn thinks by opposing the tunnel he's scoring points with voters, but to me it looks more like political grandstanding.

If by “outfoxes” you mean “looks stupid and ineffective” than I completely agree with your analysis.

Mudbaby,

Thanks for your civil comments, I'm not used to the pleasure of blogging on a site where comments are mostly civil!

Still, while I disagree with all your comments, more to the point they are all off-topic. Why should Seattle property tax-payers pay for this? I assume you don't live in Seattle since you didn't assert that you do. It's in the financial self-interest of anyone who lives out of the city and definitely in the interests of all our-of -county legislators to get us to take on this financial responsibility.

And it's up to our Council to protect us from it. I don't know why they've taken leave of their senses.

Gotta go Jazzercise, best wishes.

Is this a winner takes all debate — winner will start acting like the elected leader of Seattle?

“McGinn is against the tunnel on principle because he thinks it’s reckless to build a freeway as we face a global climate crisis that’s caused by CO2 emissions.”

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Many cars are more energy-efficient than most forms of transit, including Sound Transit light rail, or Metro buses. Van-pools are about the most energy-efficient form of transportation there is.

Cars are going to get more and more energy-efficient, and many of them will become electric.

Saying we should not have roads for the very energy-efficient cars, vans and even buses of the future is incredibly stupid.

Why are we building the light rail tunnel between downtown and the U.W.? How much CO2 is going to be put into the atmosphere by that insaenly expensive boondoggle? Would you care to get that information for us, Erica? Or, you prefer not to?

I totally agree, and I'd be more persuaded by McGinn's argument about cost overruns if it weren't motivated by his nonsensical stand on the tunnel. Having a principled opinion that is dead on arrival, and using it to animate an argument against a constructive solution just seems obstructionist to me. If McGinn had a transportation plan that not only made sense but was politically possible, I'd listen. But he doesn't. Yes, the potential cost overruns are deeply relevant to Seattle's future. So is the potential collapse of the current viaduct. The do-nothing option is not without cost and risk.

Wait, how much CO2 is produced by light rail and trolleybuses?

Your comparisons account for ridership on an average bus rather than a full one.

And for that matter, I can't see how vanpooling is more efficient than walking, or biking.

Ballmer, Conlin, and the campaigning of McGinn

Let's put on a show antics are bush league. He's the mayor, not some gadfly.

If McSandbag want a public forum he can get his ass down to the council meeting.
He made it to a prior meeting a few months ago, and was grilled by a few of the councilmenbers.
Does he really want to repeat that?

And how does shit like this help him with any of his other agenda items?

The notion that Walking or Biking will ever be anything more than a niche “commuting” option is a fantasy.

FWIW, McGinn is arguing that the spending is wreckless, Erica. That was his major point on Weekday last week. He may be telling what you want to hear, but he is broadcast something else as the major point. If fact, he has repeatedly challenged the council to state in public their position on the cost overruns, and if this is the best use of public funds.

A problem McGinn has is that he has use different numbers at different points to make his argument, he over states the portion that is at risk, and fails to ever mention that the portion that he accepts as Seattle's portion is on par with what he would have to accept with his beloved surface option.

I think he tends to lie by omission, in fact, a listener corrected him on an omission of fact during that Weekday epesode.

The tunnel was a dividing issue between the green/environmental/transportation communities, and the business/ establishment/labor communities. Now the cost overrun is becoming the central issue, the social justice folks are becoming more interested in the tunnel issue than ever before. According to the most influential social justice advocates in Seattle, the cost overrun is a major threat to the values and the interest of the social justice causes. They believe the cost overrun, which will undoubtedly occur if the cost overruns provision is not removed, will divert a lot of resources from the communities and social services.
It looks like that there is another panhandling fight in the making. The failure of the city council to articulate the cost overrun provision is hurting the image and the credibility of the city council.
Mayor McGinn has established a solid relationship with the social justice community, as one advocate put it “He is one of the most progressive mayor Seattle ever produced”. The Seattle council is underestimating the seriousness of the cost overrun. The picture people see now is a city council that is fighting hard to protect the interest of a few establishments, and a mayor who is fighting to protect the public interest.
The city council needs to know that they are losing the public support, and they need to fight alongside the mayor to remove the cost overrun.

If there is no doubt then there must be a number, data and analysis, that says how much over budget this will be.
How much is it?

How much will it overrun its budget?

I do live in Seattle. Since this is a state project I predict that efforts to stick Seattle residents with cost overruns will be successfully challenged in court. I find it baffling that so many of my fellow citizens are unconcerned about the prospect of gridlock that would ensue from trying to put all this traffic on surface streets. Far better to put it underground, especially because the state is picking up the tab.

Baker, the cost overrun would probably be around 400 millions, if not little bit more. City Tunnel ( City Council) will not pay the difference from their pocket, they will come after us. This would mean higher tax ( licence fee, etc) and cutting back city services, such as education, sefety, community services, employment … you name it.
I am not willing to sacrifice all that for a tunnel that does nothing else but puts more SUV on the road

The actual drilling of the tunnel has a 1.2 billion dollar estimate.
Thereis a 415 million dollar contigency estimate that would more than cover your number. And the extra 400 million in tolling would not have to happen at all.

You are about 400 million short of an argument.

Waaw Tolling!!!!
Why would any tax payer pay toilling. Is it going to be road for rich only. There is another problem here. I pay licence fee, and i don't think anyone should pay for tolling. This is anothe fundemental disagreement.

Mr. Baker, care to provide the list of megaprojects that came in on budget?

Try to find at least one.

When you do, let us know.

Thanks.

Mt. Baker – You're completely missing the point. No one knows how much it will overrun in costs, or even if it will. But there's a high likelihood it can happen, and could easily come in over the $415 million contingency. The point is that it is completely ludicrous to sign on to a contract with another party that says: “yeah, most of these deals go way over budget, but we're pretty sure this one won't. Even if it does, we probably can't enforce the language of this contract”. You know who signs that? An idiot.

Sorry, make that “Mr. Baker”

McGinn is using a patently false claim (Seattle will have to pay for cost overruns) to stir up opposition to the tunnel. Either he's being naive or deceptive – how is that a win?

McGinn – if you don't like the tunnel, please put forward some honest and substantive arguments and spare us the hysteria.

Starting years ago, virtually all electricity at the margins in our area has been produced by burning natural gas, which produces CO2, does it not? The electricity that electric trolleys and trains use causes natural gas to be burned, which produces CO2.

Buses and trains are never full all the time. The only thing that makes sense is to use the average ridership.

Walking or biking is not practicle for the great majority of trips which are made in motor vehicles.

The mayor is saying that the city should not sign any contracts where the results might be that Seattle residents pay unknown amounts, possibly very large. How can Conlin object to that? How can anyone object to that? The mayor is giving the council the opportunity to negotiate something better; they should be thanking him, and getting the governor and the legislature to remove the offending provision.

He was adamantly opposed to Steinbrueck's proposed rezone of industrial areas to prevent conversion to retail and other low end jobs. Supported by labor and many progressives. His obstruction failed 6-3, but he did get a resolution through to “study” industrial zones. The results? As with so many “studies,” very little.

The tunnel would produce less carbon emissions than today's ugly horror, which would be ripped down. It would take aweful traffic off of Seattle's streets and make room for bikes and a far more attractive city, greatly increasing livability to support higher densities downtown and less overall traffic, eventually.

McGinn, on the other hand, has no solution that does any of the above.

That's not principled.

In terms of the politics, McGinn looks like a buffoon to most people in Seattle and elsewhere on this topic. His issues with the language in state law requiring property owners who benefit to pay for overuns if full of half truths and evasions.

Conlin scores with his support for moving forward in a responsible way.

Now, *this* is one of the weakest comebacks on this debate I've seen in a while.

If one can't predict the exact amount of the cost overruns down to the penny, then one shouldn't oppose the cost overruns?

Try a better argumnent, Mr. B.

Could McGinn's haters argue with points of disagreement rather than kindergartenish name-calling? Why bother making your side look intellectually bankrupt?

Mike McGinn is exactly where he has always been on the tunnel: He is against it.

Will he break the law to stop it? No.

Get in now?

Where's the flip-flop?

I, too, find it quite refreshing that someone is arguing in favor of the tunnel by (gasp) offering arguments.

Where I disagree with your points on congestion is this: We have already largely replaced the people-carrying capacity of the viaduct with all the new transit options that have been introduced in the last generation. More are coming, if the tunnel doesn't swallow up all the funding options (like car tabs).

People continue to drive on the viaduct not because they have to (for the most part) but because it is faster than the bus. If the viaduct goes away, we have the people-carrying capacity on our bus and rail fleet to provide these travellers ingress and egress from downtown. It may take a little longer, but people will adjust.

As more people ride the bus, we'll have fuller buses, better transit funding, faster routes, and more frequent service. We may even have the capacity then to justify a rail line from West Seattle to Ballard.

If the tunnel gets built, I'm afraid we'll never be able to afford these transit improvements, and people will act like frogs in boiling water, all taking advantage of the available SOV space, until everyone is trapped unable to find parking space.

The problem is not where to put the cars from the viaduct. They'll mostly just stop going downtown… which will be good for all of us, IMHO. The people won't stop going downtown, but the private cars will. If you don't think it can work, visit Manhattan. Almost nobody drives private vehicles in Manhattan, and yet they have excellent mobility.

If signing an unenforceable contract is necessary to get the funding through the state legislature, why would he NOT sign it?

If this were about funds for a massive bike and transit bill, McGinn wouldn't be complaining about an unenforceable clause like this.

I usually don't like to reveal the last episode in the Stupor Mayor series, but let me just say that the next series is called Dopie Mikie Looks for a Job.

Premiering 2013, or maybe even sooner.

The concept that its financial more risky (from Seattle's perspective) to delay construction versus than proceed with construction absent any certainty on cost overruns is absurd, even if one were to believe that cost will increase 5% per year. Second, costs are not likely to increase substantial with a year of delay. Governments are doing everything imaginable to avoid deflation, we have tremendous slack in our labor markets. Now that China is on the verge of overheating, commodity prices are dropping as well.

Your logo says it all regarding the quality and depth of your analysis.

What's “patently false”? Looks to me like Conlin et al. don't disagree that Seattle could get stuck with overruns. Their position is “trust us, there won't be any overruns.” Right.

NordicGal, can you explain how the tunnel would produce less carbon emissions than a surface option or even the current viaduct? Your statement does not seem accurate.

Also, McGinn has suggested a solution, a surface option and he is principled. Conlin is principled when he feels strongly about an issue (local food, waste reduction, the monorail, zoning in Georgetown) and he in the past has reached principles similar to those of McGinn. However, in this situation, Conlin seems to have lost all of his enviro and progressive cred. He also seems to have lost his cool, which has surprised me.

I am sorry that you don't support our mayor. You will have an opportunity with the rest of us to vote again in 2013.

If there are cost overruns, the clause suggesting that Seattle is obligated to cover them is not legally enforceable. As a lawyer, McGinn is well aware of this, which shows that he isn't above misleading people in order to push his agenda.

A cost overrun is inestimable because it must include the costly health impacts of redirecting 20,000+ vehicles from 'commercial' Lower Belltown through 'residential' Lower Queen Anne, and another 20,000+ vehicles along an idiotically reconfigured Alaskan Way that couldn't handle half that amount of traffic. The cost must also include the economic impact traffic imposes to (non-car-related) business. Seattlers can't see the forest for the trees (the few left standing from its once boreal forest).

Furthermore, Mayor McGinn isn't at all “irascible” (prone to anger), Josh “hothead” Feit.

He said it would be his job as mayor to uphold and execute this agreement, even though he does not like the dbt, now he is getting in the way of it – VETO.

Rather than use his first few months as Mayor to address the overruns, he simply did his best to free himself from any previous commitments he pledged in building the tunnel – the very reason he won the Mayor's race.

Both of us could go on and on a quibble about the accuracy of McGinn's various statements with respect to overruns and his duties as mayor, but from campaign xs and os perspective, there is more than enough to work with to show he has worked in bad faith – can you trust McGinn?

These points are not off topic. If a third party was found to pay for the overuns – magically – McGinn would find a new reason to be against the tunnel. He has been in bad faith about this from the start. All the points mentioned by Mudbaby speak to the founations of opposition from Great City and Sierra Folks.

“I predict that efforts to stick Seattle residents with cost overruns will be successfully challenged in court.”

Isn't it negligent of the current Council to even take that chance?

A man walks into Harborview's emergency room and says, “Doctor! I have this horrible cough now, for a month. Can I have a chest x-ray?”

The doctor says, “Sure thing, but let's get you into the operating room first to fix that gunshot wound in your stomach that's bleeding all over my emergency room.”

Most of us (maybe not McGinn) are opposed to the tunnel because of the cost overrun issue. I don't even want to consider anything else until that's fixed.

In real life, sometimes the ends justify the means, but just as often the means justify the ends.

Baker, a pedophile is in prison. You're the deciding vote that will decide if he gets out from his life sentence. He's been a model of decorum, civility, and non-kiddie raper behavior in prison for 40 years. Can you guarantee he won't rape another kid if you vote him free? Are you willing to take that chance?

That's the problem with the cost overruns: you, Conlin, and the state can't guarantee it won't go over budget. It probably will; all big projects do.

The real problem is that Frank Chopp's idiocy has led to Seattle taxpayers owning an unfair legal proportion of that overrun cost.

Can you defend why Seattle residents should pay a higher percentage for a state project that just happens to be in Seattle?

It's a state project: if the per-person overage cost if it was evenly divided was $3,000 per person, isn't that more fair than a Seattle resident hypothetically paying $5,000 each and everyone else in Washington paying $2500? Can you even defend that?

Your poin makes no sense. The mayor is fighting for the people. Are you following the national election across the country? All the establishment candidates are out of office including 30 years vet, Arlen Specter.
Anyone who preserved to be pro-establishment, and not standing up for the interest of the people will have hard time winning election now or 2013.
In my opinion, McGinn is standing up for the people, and i don't see why he would not win 2013.

It looks like you are getting your news from the TV guide not on the ground.

Thats a funny joke, but not perfectly apt. McGinn is not doing anything to address the cost overruns, he is letting it fester.

• Your point makes no sense. The mayor is fighting for the people. Are you following the national election across the country? All the establishment candidates are out of office including 30 years vet, Arlen Specter.
Anyone who preserved to be pro-establishment and not standing up for the interest of the people will have hard time winning election now or 2013.
In my opinion, McGinn is standing up for the people, and i don't see why he would not win 2013.

It looks like you are getting your news from the TV guide not on the ground

Unless he asks Holmes to sue the state or sue the Council, or does so himself, there's nothing he can do except turn it into the political shit storm to end all political shit storms.

There is no defense at all for any Seattle politician to sell us out. If someone in Yakima only will own +$1000 for the tunnel overruns, it's flat fucking despicable for anyone in Seattle to be on the hook for +$2000 or even +$1001.

Conlin, Chopp, everyone on the Council that supported that: Traitors, the lot of them, and this will literally flay and skin them come next election cycle if they don't stand up to the state. Chopp is probably a dead man walking at this point, so it's down to the Council to actually show some relevance and respect for Seattle here.

If they won't, anything less than McGinn filing suit would be a failure.

ALL of them need to understand that every last one of them is 100% replaceable at any point in time. They serve us because we decided to let them.

“If signing an unenforceable contract is necessary to get the funding through the state legislature, why would he NOT sign it?”

Would you sign a mortgage without knowing what your monthly costs would be?

If you reread my comment, you will see that I am a McGinn supporter. Perhaps you meant to address NordicGal who has strong anti-McGinn sentiment.

My above mess is meant to TV guide not baseball. Sorry for the misplacement

I meant the mess for TV guide not you. Sorry about that.
Thanks buddy

Personally, I could care less about his agenda if it gets the cost overrun provision killed. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

//virtually all electricity at the margins in our area has been produced by burning natural gas, which produces CO2// We sell a whole lot of hydroelectric electricity to California, and it could be argued that not selling them this electricity increases the amount of natural gas they burn, but it's a weak argument, especially since CA and WA are building more and more renewable energy sources. The fact is that Seattle has the cleanest energy in the country and is among the cleanest in the world. If anyone should switch to electrical sources of power it's us. Secondly, internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient.

//The only thing that makes sense is to use the average ridership.// Not if we're comparing ridership in the future – especially a future without a viaduct.

//Van-pools are about the most energy-efficient form of transportation there is.// Ugh. The study you're referring to compares apples to oranges. Vanpools are generally used on long-haul runs and run mostly full. Comparing them to in-city buses is dishonest.

The deep bore tunnel seems like the worst of both worlds traffic wise. Lots more drivers on the surface streets (high tolls and no downtown exits) and no transit improvements to reduce the number of drivers.

Are you a lawyer?

Agreed. Ross Kane's posting, for example, is much more effective. Name calling and/or trotting out old sound bites add nothing to the discussion.

A lawyer? Good god, no, but if you're looking for a legal analysis of the “cost overrun” clause, there is plenty of info out there, including this:

http://www.publicola.net/2009/10/16/the-myth-of…

Not even McGinn has argued that this clause has any legal teeth, although he's happy to play political games with it.

If Wells is the Chicken Little of the DBT from the engineering side, then you seem to be vying to be the Chicken Little from the cost overrun side. I find myself wondering why you get so worked up about this.
-
Please don't bother to rehash the same arguments. I want to know why it is that this is such a hot-button issue for you.

McGinn forgets – yet again – that he is not a candidate anymore, and needs to learn to find a middle ground with the Council, not work against them. Setting up a debate so he can grandstand and pack the audience with his supporters, even if you support his position, how does a debate solve anything here?

With every passing day McGinn proves he has no clue how to be a mayor. None.

Go with the surface option and all of the state funding disappears. I've said it before, this is a high stakes poker game and Council has the best hand. It shouldn't be like, but it is.

It literally comes down to a question of fairness to me. That's it. There is no reason for this provision to even exist. If the US Federal government decided to build another dam on the Columbia River–which may benefit Washington–would anyone be OK with it if the Fed said that WA taxpayers were on the hook for any possible cost overruns, but not the rest of the nation?

That's whats happening here. It's like if Seattle decided to completely rebuild it's entire port at the cost of $1,000,000,000, and then announced that Washington taxpayers–but not Seattle taxpayers!–would pay for the cost overruns. If the state decided the Tacoma bridge had to come down immediately for a rebuild because of a design flaw, would it be right that Tacoma tax payers were 100% on the hook for overruns there exclusively? Of course not.

It's entirely, patently, and wholly unfair. It's a state level project. The cost is to to all state residents equally.

God, does this ever progress forward? Same story, same headline, just different day. McGinn complains about the tunnel and wants to stall. Council (or business community, or Governor) insists we move forward. Seattle opinion split on merit of tunnel, but in general opposed to sticking cost overruns to city residents.

There you go. Just cut and paste this story for the next 10 years. Let's see if anything changes in the meantime. Likely, we'll keep belaboring this. The rallying cry for the tunnel oppoents should be “remember the monorail.” If they can stall it long enough, eventually it might get voted down (after 4 votes).

why have an OPEN debate, they should just text each other 20 some times about it.

Recently American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the trade group for state DOTs, released a report on the biggest needs in each state:
http://expandingcapacity.transportation.org/unl…

What did they identify as the greatest need in Washington? Maintaining I-5, which carries far more traffic that the viaduct: “Built in the 1960s, I-5’s pavement is deteriorating. Fifty-percent of the pavement is past its replacement life or needs replacement within five years; another 40 percent should be replaced within 10 years and the remaining 10 percent should be replaced within the next 10—15 years. Of an estimated $2 billion needed to replace I-5 pavement, Washington’s legislature has provided $21 million to begin repairs to fix some of the worst areas.”

People, we are simply out of funds for highways, gas tax or otherwise. WSDOT cannot pay for SR-520 or maintaining the existing I-5. Even if the DBT is “better” than the rest of SR-99 (think Tukwila or Shoreline), we cannot afford it. Put it on the wish list for the 2020s or something.

Check out [lawfriend]'s argument halfway down the comments in your link. There is legal wiggle room, or the state might just walk away if there are overruns, leaving us with a big dead hole.

We need a clear agreement before we go forward with this massive project. The stakes are too high not to.

“Unless Richard Conlin has financial interests in the construction of the Seattle tunnel or has–or has been promised–financial campaign support or political support from those that will benefit fiscally from the construction of the tunnel, there is no sane reason for him to support it with the cost overrun provision.”

Precisely the point. He does, and his actions help prove it.

On a different note, this is an interesting detail for Publicola to explore, and smart for all us new media consumers to observe. In all their recent writing about the cost overruns, they've not paid a lot of attention to this technical article which appeared on their own site. I know advokat is only a contributor, and advo's opinion can be viewed as sort of an op ed, and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial staff, but for a news outlet of any kind to so consistently ignore a technical opinion carried under their own banner seems a little odd. Have Publicola rebutted or addressed this somewhere, and I just missed it?

Its no less negligent for the mayor to take the chance either, or even worse, assume and talk as if they are real. The mayors politicking of this issue is what bothers me the most, he could take his oath as a civic official seriously and defend not only Seattle, but every municipality in the state on this point.

Alas, he remains a community activist, insurgent to the end, when Seattle needs a mayor most.

How depressing: just try and stick to a decision! Seattle really is the land of process. You have to hand it to McGinn. He just might get a second bite at the apple. With appologies to Hericlitus, it would seem that in Seattle one can never step into the same political stream twice. Where is Plato when we need him.

I'd like to read a report about McGinn that starts with something other than: “McGinn challenges”. That's a recurring theme these days that is appropriate for MMA, WWF, Boxing, gang fights, street car racing, but as the prevailing governance meme. There's all sorts of “leaderly” words that would make me so much happier. For instance: achieves, cooperatives, drives, motivates, influences, creates, establishes, coaches, develops, initiations, guides, or wait for it……..inspires.

Is there a strategic plan? Can we see it? Do the department heads know what they are supposed to be doing, so that their work (and our money) actually gets achieves stuff (the people's work, remember?) – or are they all bellied up to the ring passin' a big old bag of popcorn?

Not much similarity between the tunnel funding and a mortgage.

More to the point, if someone offered a contract that paid me, say, $5,000,000, but also insisted on a pound of my flesh if the tunnel came in over budget, yes, I would definitely sign that contract. Why? Because the pound of flesh clause is not legally enforceable.

I'm not disagreeing with you in spirit, but his strategic plan/priorities, at least for transportation is clear:
-
1. Walk, Bike, Ride
-
2. Maintain basic services
-
3. Cut the budget

Stick to a decision? You mean like the MVET for transit to replace viaduct traffic that Gregoire agreed to and then vetoed?
http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/news/release/200…

http://seattletransitblog.com/2009/05/20/metro-…

Soapboxin: Transportation has little to do with most departments. Targets that are measurable and backed by budgets are the only thing that count – not photo ops, press releases and unfunded mandates.

Yeah, but then your contract won't be enforcable and you'll have to sell off your new boat to pay off the $5M you owe back.

But McGinn ran on transportation issues and that's clearly his top priority as Mayor. And those are the priorities of his transportation agenda. Listen to any of his recent public appearances, such as Weekday. Walk, Bike, Ride is his #1 priority overall. Maintaining basic services while being fiscally responsible is the marching order for all departments. Everything else, such as public safety, is lower on his pecking order but basically adheres to the same priorities. He ran on transportation and his predecessor lost the election because of a perceived failure to deliver basic services. We've all heard his doom and gloom economic forecast. I waited anxiously to hear an agenda from him. We have it now.

No, the inclusion of a illegal or unenforceable clause doesn't nullify an entire contract. If the tunnel runs over budget, I get to keep my $5m and pound of flesh.

Now you're a lawyer? The basic requirements of a contract include that the agreement must not be trifling, indeterminate, impossible, or illegal. Both sides must have consideration – giving you $5M for no returned value isn't a contract, and you'll owe that money back along with interest.

I'm straying off point, but you could end up with a big hole in the ground.

This is all there is? “maintain basic services and cut the budget”. By how much? in what areas? what's more important, so that a department head can take action? What services are basic? are there some that are more important than others? So can they decide to cut training and experience increases in safety expenses? Does personnel cut assessment services, so that seattle gets hit with more lawsuits over hiring? That's not leadership – it's a wish. And it does sound like the department heads are on their own – It's a good thing we have several good ones.

3% across the board. At the department head's direction. Where have you been?

I get the 3% part – but that's not leadership. Imagine the president of a major company waltzing and saying to the shareholders and board: “I told staff to cut costs by 3%, I have no idea what their plan is and i don't have any ideas, but i'm sure they will figure it out. I also told them to keep doing a good job on what's important (basic services). Now I didn't exactly tell them specifically what areas of stuff we do to maintain, and I don't have a clear picture of how to tell where we are now and how to tell if we “maintained” anything, but I'm sure it will be fine.”

Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Except for the,”I'm sure it will be fine.” Mayor McGloom&Doom constantly reminds us that we shouldn't expect things to get better, economically speaking. Which is rational, but not very good leadership.
-
I don't think we're disagreeing here. I just think these things aren't a mystery anymore.

I didn't say that it would produce less than a surface option, just less than the current Viaduct, which has more lanes and blights a part of the city that ought to support dense waterfront housing and jobs instead. I do think there could be a case for carbon reduction with the tunnel for the same reasons – it also removes noise and fumes from a place that would be a whole lot more livable.

There are few local politicians greener than Conlin anywhere in North America. McGinn is not even as green as Conlin. And don't confuse a disagreement with the Mayor on this topic with lack of support for him on my part, even though his stupid antics on this are hurting the city he has time to recover my vote by 2013.

Josh is wrong about this. McGinn has made another stupid political move in challenging Conlin to a debate. The debate is pretty much over. All McGinn is doing is wasting his potentially useful political capital on a lost cause and dragging the city down. Most people don't want more debate on this topic – I think the scored is something like 26% are with McGinn on this topic, the rest aren't.

Time to put people to work and balance the budget. Once that's done the Mayor may have the credibility to throw bombs and play more political games.

If the debate is over, why does it keep popping up in the media, like last week when the Gates Foundation said the tunnel on-ramps being right through their new campus was a “serious concern”?

Among the people I talk to at least the mayor is building political capital and the council is losing it. My guess is that even more people are concerned about the cost now than back when we elected him.

This is not about McGinn, this is about my wallet. I don't simply want to pay something that i can't use it. I can't pay tolling.

Then remove it from the agreement.

We will stand with the mayor on this issue. Stop the rich man's project

“I'm straying off point, but you could end up with a big hole in the ground.”

I'm still not a lawyer, but you really don't have to be know that a single illegal provision does not invalidate an entire contract. Any change in contract law (e.g., CA's recent laws regard no-compete clauses) would instantly nullify millions of contracts if this were true.

In any case, the state isn't going to walk away from a multi-billion dollar investment because its a few hundred million over budget. That's even sillier than suggesting Seattle property owners are actually on the hook for cost overruns.

But for the sake of argument, let's say the state does walk away from the project. What's the result? No tunnel, which is exactly what McGinn, Josh, and Erica wanted in the first place. McGinn is then free to panhandle Seattle citizens to pay for his surface freeway, as seems to be his current plan. Good luck with that!

This is the world. It's not just a legal issue, it's political. Matt the Engineer is right – there is wiggle room, and here's how it plays out:

1) Seattle smirkingly signs on to the agreement with the cost overrun provision still in place, thinking “It's legally unenforceable, so why the hell not?”
2) In a truly shocking turn of events, the deep bore tunnel megaproject runs over-budget.
3) Seattle says “Oh, lookee here. Turns out you can't make us pay for the overruns after all.”
4) The rest of the state, where politicians make careers out of running against Seattle, pitch an epic fit.
“They signed the deal,” the reps from Wenatchee and Vancouver will say, “and now they're reneging!”
“The tunnel benefits them most of all!”
“Seattleite? Ha! More like 'sodomite'! And now the rich arrogant bastards want your money too!”
5) By the time this gets before a (popularly elected) judge, the city is so battered that the legal wiggle room will have turned into a massive gaping hole through which we Seattleites will be shafted.

It's hard to debate your analogy and the actual case at the same time, since they're so different. Your $5M would have to be paid back, since you had no contract.

Regarding the tunnel, my point is that not hammering out the details beforehand leaves us with an unknown outcome. The state could certainly stop building when their obligation runs out, leaving us to either finish it on our own or waste billions of dollars of tax money (something we all pay). It all depends on the state of politics at the end of the contract.

Why not fix this now? If it's unenforcable, then we should at least have them remove it.

To Feral Gnome and Matt the Engineer: If Chopp succeeds in killing the DBT, what then????
-
I do get your point, but I'm not any more pleased with where that leaves us. 1) Years of delays, 2) The possibility of the State rebuilding the Viaduct, 3) Arguing over an unfunded surface option, 4) Tearing our hair out because the Seattle Process is such a complete nightmare.
-
At some point we have to make an irrevocable decision with incomplete information, plus a good bit of dissenting opinion. Will that happen in my lifetime? Before the damn Viaduct actually does fall down?

[Soap], there's no reason this has to turn into any type of delay. The state can agree to pay for overruns, and we're done. Putting the delay solely on McGinn is dishonest – it takes two to tango, and the state's the one that put in the unenforceable and ridiculous language.

Regarding our other options, the most likely one if the tunnel deal falls through is that the state will tear down their viaduct and go home. We'll pay for the street option ourselves, asking the state for some road money and some improvements on I-5. But I think this is far less likely than the state just fixing their “Seattle pays” clause.

All this would come to an end if we just closed the viaduct now and see what happens on city streets and I-5. McGinn and company better find the money to put everybody on a bus/

Seattle demanded this tunnel. The Legislature, the Governor and WSDOT did not even have it on the table.

How quickly everyone's forgets.

No, the City Council and business interests demanded the tunnel. They are not Seattle; they're one small subset of who Seattle is.

How quickly everyone forgets.

And my point isn't even about the tunnel: it's a state project. I could care less if Viaduct 2.0 was being built; it's immoral, unethical, and quite likely illegal for Seattle residents to pay a disproportionate share of a state project.

How quickly everyone forgets after reading my post, which doesn't even rail on the tunnel–just the cost overrun provision.

The state gave you the rebuilt Viaduct and your small subset refused it. Now the state will toss you the same money to build your tunnel and a small subset whines about the small subset of Seattle who will have to pay for the overruns.

ECB – EVERY blog post about the Mayor from now on should begin, “The irascible Mike McGinn….”!!!

The small subset of Seattle? The way it's worded we ALL have to pay. If you're a property owner–you pay. If you're a renter–guess what, you don't think that additional cost will be pushed down?

There is no valid defense of Seattle absorbing the cost overruns on a state project. None.

Wouldn't it piss you off if the US government said, “We'll rebuild the entirety of the Columbia River dam system, but any cost overruns will be eaten by Washington State taxpayers?”

Same principle. It's bullshit.

“That's known as a knockout.”

Until the lawsuits and ballot initiative knock down Conlin's house of cards as the sham it is.