Rasmussen: McGinn’s “Obsession” with Tunnel Hurting the City in Olympia

Rasmussen is also obsessed; he’s just on the other side of the issue. I’ll take the tunnel skeptic over the tunnel groupie any day.

I love this. Go Tom!

Very convincing argument, that.

Let’s take Tom’s points in order:

On the possibility of cost overruns: Actually Tom, your experts told you that there’s a 40% chance of this project going massively over budget and you do not have nearly enough in contingency to cover this amount.

On McGinn’s opposition to the project: McGinn has done exactly what he said he’d do, push back until the cost overrun issue gets resolved.

On trust: Gregoire and the legislature have lied, lied and lied again about this project since they developed it during a back-room deal with establishment power brokers. Of course they can’t be trusted.

On Seattle’s responsibility to pay cost overruns: The City, County and State have all said they won’t pay; we still haven’t answered this basic question.

It’s the Council who’s obsessed with pushing through a project that doesn’t make sense for our transportation, fiscal or environmental future; why, I have no idea.

“I don’t think he’s serving the city well with his obsessive obsession with this project.”

“Obsessive obsession”? That sounds serious.

Let’s take @Tyler’s points in order:

What’s it matter about the 40% chance, this is a state project, not a city of Seattle project.

Cost overruns issue in regards to Seattle getting stuck with the bill has been resolved…it’s not enforceable. So he’s hammering away with “obsessive obsession” only because he never truly changed his do-anything-to-stop-the-tunnel position.

Legislature and the governor don’t need anything from McGinn. He and Seattle need lots of stuff from them, so the trust issue isn’t a mutual need; it’s a one way street.

All the lawyers (even his own) say that the law isn’t enforceable. So has Tom pointed out, he is just trying to create doubt in the mind of the public. Kind of like the way that republicans get 1/3 of themselves to believe that Obama is a Muslim (not that it matters) and most still believe that Iraq had WMDs.

The council is obsessed with getting something done and not fighting the state on its project.

The “Obsessive obsession” should have been in the headline.

About time that someone poked the scoundrels in Olympia in the eye.

It matters because the State will cut back on everything that benefits Seattle in order to make the tunnel come in “on budget.” It matters because if (when) cost overruns occur, we’ll hve a big nasty fight over who will pay.

It does not matter if the language is enforceable; what matters is no one wants to pay and Seattle will end up getting stuck with the bill.

Kissing Olympia’s ass hasn’t worked out so well for us now has it? We’re the one’s getting a terrible project shoved down our throats and having our tax dollars shipped all over the state to fund other terrible projects. It’s abotu time we started standing up for ourselves.

The EIS isn’t complete yet the promoters of the project run around declaring that, “It’s a done deal.” Not only is this wrong, it’s illegal to say this as it’s not officially a done deal. More like a bad deal.

Shouldn’t the Council be obsessed with protecting Seattle from the harms of the project (like thousands of cars on City streets, no money for increased transit, collapsing buildings in Pioneer Square and the risk of cost overruns) instead of blindly cheerleading it along?

That’s not their eye he’s aiming for, nor with his finger…

That’s not their eye he’s aiming for, nor with his finger…

For when Calvin Klein “obsession” isn’t obsessive enough. ; )

There’s another Rasmussen quote that isn’t as salacious, but that is important to review: “I think what’s important to remember is that this project is not only a tunnel but it also includes a significant amount of transit.”

That is not true.

I guess once 2012 has come and passed without any world-ending event, just like 9/9/99, the next date everyone will be worried about is the date the tunnel opens.

McGinn would do well to listen to Rasmussen’s critique, the points of which have been made repeatedly by almost everyone engaged in Seattle politics.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying he has to support the tunnel. The way he’s gone about it, however, has lost him the respect of all but his devoted base. The insults, baldfaced lies, ridiculous melodramatics, scare tactics, and disingenuous arguments have, if anything, completely undermined his office and his position.

This is a flat out lie and I found myself yelling at the screen when he said it.

“Gregoire and the legislature have lied, lied and lied again about this project since they developed it during a back-room deal with establishment power brokers. Of course they can’t be trusted.”

What lies, exactly? Where did these back-room deals happen? Who are these power brokers?

Or are you just completely making things up?

As soon as the Council stops listening exclusively to the minority powerful “stakeholders” and allows an open vote or forum on the tunnel for the rest of the stakeholders–all 617,334 of them–they can have my vote.

There seems to be an underlying message from the WSDOT and the majority council that if we (everyone who isn’t them) only knew what they knew then we wouldn’t question them. It’s like double top secret information and we should all just trust them. The last time I recall a group of legislators and voters being told to relax and just trust top secret information the U.S. ended up in Iraq.

I am so disgusted with our present City Council and their continued petulance over the last mayoral election. Every single one of those council members should have the gumption to question this outrageous boondoggle, but because Mayor McGinn wasn’t their “boy” (nor was he the choice downtown developers) they mock and disparage his efforts. Thank goodness the Mayor has the chutzpah to risk his own political capital in order to protect the best interests of all of Seattle’s citizens.

The mayor has political capital?

The mayor has political capital?

According to Tom Rasmussen he does.

First, the viaduct was coming down until 2012, until it wasn’t. Then, there was supposed to be $190 million in transit for the project, until it got vetoed. Then, the State was going to be responsible for the entire cost of the project (including overruns), until “Seattle area property owners who benefit” suddenly became responsible for cost overruns; then they gave away the contingency; then they rigged the SDEIS; and on and on and on…..

These back room deals happened in the weeks between the Stakeholders recommending the surfact-transit alternative and another elevated as the two options that made the most sense and Gregoire-Sims-Nickels coming out with the tunnel deal. The power brokers are unkown exactly but included wonderful people like Tayloe Washburn and the Discovery Institute (they of faith-based transportation policies).

Are you completely not paying attention?

Actually, according to Tom Rasmussen, he’s pissed it all away.

This so called “Mayor” is train wreck. I have never seen such a disaster. Flip-flopping on the tunnel, flip flopping on firing a bunch of people from the city payroll, hiring a felon, trying to spring a surprise vote (at the cost of millions $) for the seawall (to block the tunnel), trying to block the 520 project because he wants rail on it (already rail planned for the OTHER bridge), Telling people to take the bus if it snows (Half the fleet are articulated and can’t function in the snow!), pretends he’s an avid biker and then takes an SUV to work, I mean really. Has he done ANYTHING good? No. I would say the people of Seattle deserve better, but they were dumb enough to vote for this moron, so they get what they deserve.

I’m not sure they’re holding their breath.

I’m not sure they’re holding their breath.

But I thought governments were intimidated by the Internets!

But I thought governments were intimidated by the Internets!

the anti-car nuts who are trying to screw this city & strangle it with traffic

won’t be happy until the viaduct collapses and kills a bunch of people — becuase they figger it means a few less cars on the streets

No one that fat rides a bike every day, he hoodwinked the bikers just like he did the 25% of the people who like him

You forgot the vote in 2011 on a West Seattle / Ballard light rail plan

They used to be, until they realized it was just me and John Bailo that spend our time here.

I can’t wait until we get a chance to vote every last one of them out of the City Council. Anyone know if there’s a comprehensive list of when their terms are up?

McGinn said he wouldn’t try to stop the tunnel. It helped him win the mayorship, but it was clearly a bald-faced lie. When did Rasmussen ever lie about his support for the tunnel in order to get elected?

He takes an SUV to work?

Let’s compare to a similar issue in Olympia…

A number of experts and politicians believe that Tim Eyman’s recently approved I-1053 is unconstitutional.

Yet 60% of voters supported it because they don’t like how our legislators tax and budget. And this is the second time they have supported a two-thirds majority for taxes.

Should we just plan for new taxes from Olympia to support projects in the Seattle area because we don’t believe I-1053 is enforceable?

Do you suspect that a majority of lawmakers will support this initiative anyway? Or does it not matter what lawmakers say to the press?

Just to second Tyler…

There was no bored tunnel alternative under discussion during the public process.

The reason for this supplemental EIS process happening right now is precisely because that alternative had not been studied by WSDOT.

While the alternative had been talked about for some time, it was never presented in any public forum, and was a last minute “deal” agreed upon by Gregoire, Sims, and Nickels.

Ha ha… Fat jokes. Is this the level of discussion we would like to have on a major city project that will cost each of us thousands of dollars in taxes?

There are folks with real questions about the tunnel who have actually read through the EIS, and are concerned about the issues it raises.

Some of us even ride on the Viaduct every single day.

We think this is a serious issue that requires serious discussion and are frankly appalled at the lies and deceptions coming from the mouths of a number of electeds here in Seattle.

The militantly pro-car nutjobs don’t understand how our collective car-dependency makes driving worse. They’re fine with how traffic makes walking and bicycling life-threatening. They couldn’t care less about mass transit. But tell them that driving could be better with alternatives to driving, and they go bananas.

The deep bore tunnel is poorly engineered to manage traffic and as such imposes severe environmental impacts; more impacts than the surface/transit option. WSDOT is corrupt.

Rasmussen is up in 2011, as are Godden, Harrell, Burgess, and Clark. The rest in 2013.

On a related matter, has anyone seen anything lately about the status of the Brightwater waste water tunnel project? As I recall about six months ago one of the boring machines had been restarted but the other remained broken down in the tunnel and they were sort of out of ideas as to how to fix it. Is there anything new on that?

On a related matter, has anyone seen anything lately about the status of the Brightwater waste water tunnel project? As I recall about six months ago one of the boring machines had been restarted but the other remained broken down in the tunnel and they were sort of out of ideas as to how to fix it. Is there anything new on that?

You still haven’t shown us a single lie, or evidence of any specific meetings at which unsavory topics were discussed.

As for the “power brokers” who signed off on this project, they were all elected into office by majority of their constituents.

But it’s not unconstitutional (cause it hasn’t been ruled as such). Unenforceable because of the constitution and unconstitutional are very different. But as someone said in another post, if the legislature wanted to raise the taxes, they could until it was litigated and ruled illegal because of I-1053.

What constitutes a public forum? Or, you mean Seattle didn’t get to vote on it?

I think his point was that the mayor rolls in an SUV despite his anti-car rhetoric.

I think his point was that the mayor rolls in an SUV despite his anti-car rhetoric.

I think his point was that the mayor rolls in an SUV despite his anti-car rhetoric.

Ha ha… your name is an abbreviation of Mickey Mouse.

The jokes aren’t as relevant as the facts. That a Mayor who advertised himself as an active cyclist clearly is not as active/healthy as he claimed to be is important to bring up, because it’s a reflection of his character, which itself is an important factor in any discussion he insists on driving.

(And the first person to try and argue that a guy whose weight pushes three bills is actually active fit and healthy fails.

Fan of Mickymse agrees with Gomez.

The tunnel boosters insist on keeping the viaduct open until the tunnel opens. It is they who are risking the lives of thousands. And, well, I suppose that those who continue to drive on it are also partially responsible.

Bring the viaduct down now, if it really is a safety issue. Replacing the car trips is *not* a safety issue.

Actually, the downtown poobahs did have a pretty well publicized meeting that led to the Discovery Institute’s back-of-a-napkin tunnel plan becoming the current alternative to an elevated AWV replacement.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008614739_viaduct11m.html

I’d also say that the whole linkage of the Mercer Street project to the AWV replacement and the use of the proceeds of the sales of Mercer/Valley properties to keep the tunnel EIS alive a few years back was the result of unsavory backroom discussions, too.

Heck, the downtown cabal has been lying and deceiving in defense of tearing down the AWV and replacing it with a toll tunnel since 1994 – and the greatest deceptions have been those that took retrofitting the existing structure off the table before the process even began.

Well, if Rasmussen says so, it must be true.

Tyler, you say “…there’s a 40% chance of this project going massively over budget and you do not have nearly enough in contingency to cover this amount.” Without defining massively, there is no way to conclude that there are insufficient contingency funds.
You say “…developed it during a back-room deal with establishment power brokers.” Do you have specific information on this back-room deal, and who the power brokers are that made it, or are you just repeating a meaningless mantra?
The viaduct needs to be replaced. This is a fact. There is a plan, with funding identified, to replace it with a tunnel under the city. This is a fact. Building the tunnel now will create thousands of new jobs. This is a fact. Financing the tunnel now will save the State millions by taking advantage of historically low borrowing costs. This is a fact. Mayor McGinn stated publicly in his campaign that he would not oppose the tunnel project, yet he’s actively opposing it now. This is a fact.
There is a high likelihood that McGinn will not be re-elected because he is not trusted to keep his word. This is opinion.

Gomez is a fatty who’s embarrassed about his weight and jealous of other fatties who support bicycling. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

“Actually, the downtown poobahs did have a pretty well publicized meeting”

The Surface Option was born of similar meetings involving Seattle’s cartel of left-wing agitators, propagandists, misanthropes, and green-party apparatchiks. So what?

I’d make stupid jokes about the dillweeds who want to kill this city , like you & McGinn, but that would be too obvious & redundant

kill the viaduct traffic & kill this city

everyday traffic will be like downtown during a Seahawks AND a Huskie AND a Sounder home game day every day

businesses would leave this metropolitan area in droves

Now that the SDEIS is out, we can confirm that it is time to pull the plug. It would be a colossal misallocation of state resources, with high risk for Seattle. It has made a farce of both our democratic process and the state’s commitment to reduce green house gas emissions and to prioritize mobility for people and freight over vehicle capacity.

Consider that the SDEIS predicts 117,000 vehicles a day on the current viaduct just before it closes down, then only around 40,000 the next day when the tunnel opens (assuming the tolls that will be needed to pay for it), with most of the rest of the cars clogging Seattle streets.

Could this gridlock be mitigated? Sure – by building a West Seattle to Ballard light rail, by doing significant work on I-5 at the south end of downtown, etc. But the state doesn’t want to pay for this, and if we do it, then we don’t need the tunnel.

We’re already at a point where the state can afford to finance only the most essential projects – those that will prepare us for the future, not the past. Seattle needs to lead the way and say No to megaprojects for a bygone era.

He’s not the only one.

Apparently they’ve got another machine going since fall, and will be taking the busted one apart and removing it. Scheduled opening of plant is still August of next year:http://www.kingcounty.gov/envi…

Correct! Except not at all! Thanks for dropping by from Slog! Except not really!

I’m also not claiming to be an avid cyclist as part of some personal marketing campaign.

That, or just build the elevated replacement for the AWV that it has budgeted for (or better still, retrofit the existing structure).

Oops.

Exactly.

Where’s the beef Tom?

Exactly.

Where’s the beef Tom?