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.

x close
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.

Shocker: Godden Opposes Amendment Affirming Right to Vote on Tunnel

City Hall, Politics   July 30, 2010 at 12:58 pm Erica C. Barnett

In a letter to Friends of Seattle leaders, City Council member Jean Godden—who accused Mayor Mike McGinn of “engaging in textbook manipulation” by raising fears about tunnel cost overruns in a recent column for Crosscut—said she will not support two amendments to the council’s tunnel resolution proposed by Friends of Seattle.

As we reported in Fizz this morning, the first amendment would affirm that the council “does not intend to abridge the people’s power to subject city ordinances to a public referendum”—a statement, essentially, that the council will allow a referendum on the tunnel to go forward if citizens propose one in the future. The second amendment says the council believes that a state law putting Seattle-area property owners on the hook for cost overruns is legally unenforceable.

In her letter, Godden writes: “I do believe that [the amendments] accomplish much the same thing as section Two and Three of our resolution,” which say that the state is responsible for paying all costs related to the tunnel, and that the city isn’t responsible for overruns. “The resolution which will be considered for passage on Monday is quite explicit on both points. The wording has been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal staff. Obviously we cannot rewrite state law, but this is as close as we can come to saying ‘hell no.”

“Regarding a referendum,” Godden continues, “I believe that would be an unfortunate approach at this late date in consideration of the AWV replacement. We have debated this for the past 10 years, while the viaduct becomes ever more of a risk.”

Friends of Seattle is writing a response to Godden’s column; in an email, FoS president Gary Manca wondered, “Why is she opposed to recognizing the people’s power of referendum (and initiative, for that matter)?”


  • Jonah

    Has Jean forgotten that the voters of Seattle are going to put her up for a referendum next fall? Calling 63% of her employers “birthers” seems to indicate that maybe she has indeed forgotten.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    #1. We can tear down the Viaduct today. We can close it today. What's more important? Lives or commuting times. She's dodging.

    #2. The Council will never back down now based on ego, which is why they're opposed to the people voting on the DBT–the ONE method we never voted on. If they give up the vote now, and it fails, they have zero authoritative leg to stand on.

    #3. Re #2's ego. If they give an inch, it validates McGinn and presents the appearance that the office of Mayor holds more authority on city matters than the Council.

    #4. They're all wrong, since all their authority derives from us. If your city council, or mayor, is trying to stop you voting on a given measure–even an advisory vote–something is wildly and terribly wrong in city hall. Any city hall.

  • tpn

    You are either with the Urbanists, or you are with the Terrorists.

  • Stacy

    You either support the tunnel without question or you're an obstructionist urbanazi who wants to kill all industry in Seattle, destroy our waterfront and create total gridlock on our streets.

  • ivan

    Sorry, Stacy. Over the edge as usual. I don't support the tunnel, and I'm hardly an eltiist urbanazi.

  • ivan

    We can tear down the Viaduct today? What do you mean “we,” Kemo Sabe?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Realistically, the viaduct could be torn down by the adorable local hipster couple known as Mr. Seattle Fault and Mrs. Cascadia Subduction-Fault.

  • tvguide

    Friends of Seattle, please feel welcome to meet the people who live and work here sometime. You'll find that we aren't like you, but sure would be glad to give you an education on how a real city works. Ever so glad that you are our friends. Hugs.

  • Stacy

    Or you're living with your head in the sand and in complete denial about the need to invest in infrastructure that helps us deal with the problems of peak oil, climate change, a sick Puget Sound, a broken economy (and resulting declining government revenues) and a future that will look nothing like the past 50 years. Over the edge enough for you?

  • ivan

    Another day, another urbanazi, another sanctimonious lecture. I have voted for, and continue to support, every single mass public transit measure that has come down the pike.

    But as usual, you urbanazis, with your cult-like binary thinking, continue to insist that if we are not 100 percent with you on everything, then we must necessarily be 100 percent against you on everything.

    Why don't you and Misha get a room?

  • Mongoose Civique

    With “Friends” like that, who needs enemies?

  • serial_catowner

    More to the point, what is this BS about recognizing the people's right to a referendum in an amendment to a resolution on an entirely different subject. Either the people have a right to a referendum, or they don't.

    Creating a referendum process is not a small change in government. If people think the existing process needs to be changed, it should be studied and debated first, not inserted as an amendment “to make a point”.

  • Mr. X

    Or it might not. The disappointment among Viaduct haters after it came through the 2001 Nisqually Quake relatively unscathed was palpable.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I think the council's legislative intent is quite clear.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    The other option if the couple's backward cousin from South King County, Rainier Lahar. He always trashes things down at the end of the Duwamish when he comes over.

  • Mr. X

    Please – in the event of a Cascadia subduction quake (which could happen tomorrow, or in 300+ years) or a Rainier lahar (which is unlikely to do much to Seattle, though I wouldn't want to be in South King County) great chunks of the area will be a smoldering ruin.

    Pretty thin gruel to fearmonger on – you can do better.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Option #3: Tim Eyman is outed as a hostile extraterrestrial threat, triggering an invasion from space. Eyman personally leads the main mothership in a devastating referendum on the Viaduct, leaving it in ruins.

  • Mr. X

    OK, now I'm scared :)

  • tpn

    Like I said, you are either with the Urbanists….

  • tpn

    Got “Choppaduct?”

  • tpn

    Now it's “tunnel supporter” = “hates democracy”. There so much red herring out here I could have a BBQ and invite all of Ballard.

  • S O

    The people have the right to referendum, period. The Council's intent is irrelevant–they have no power to limit that right. This amendment is blatant McGinn/Mercury Group wedge-issue grandstanding.

    Incidentally, why doesn't the article note that FoS are tunnel opponents that support a surface replacement? And close allies of the Mayor? Publicola is starting to read like a house propaganda organ for FoS, never questioning their comically biased polls, or the ideological basis of their actions.

    And why no analysis of how McGinn, O'Brien, the Sierra Club, and FoS are taking ever-so slightly different actions in this good cop/bad cop wedge-issue circus? Now that would be journalism worth reading–this coordinated populist approach is quite new in Seattle politics, clearly well organized, and gaining traction.

    Not to get too harsh on publicola–it's a given that no other Seattle publication would have the chops or knowledge to even attempt such an article–take it as a compliment.

  • Barleywine

    I wholeheartedly agree with your comment.

    But catowner? How's about catcaretaker?

  • fount

    It's not always about “with us or against us.” Plenty of roads are getting built for cars, not bikes. Plenty of infrastructure focused on cars, not transit, is going in without the “urbanists” saying a thing.

    But when you want to make a $4 billion, 50 to 100 year investment that will either move us forward or hold us back for an entire generation…then, yes, you can either be with us or against us.

    Also, Ivan, you TOTALLY missed that Stacey's first reply post was a sarcastic response to tpn's post.