Council Will Put Tunnel Referendum On Ballot

 The Judge basically had to rule as she did.

But I will be curious to see how the language of the referendum is actually phrased. 

I mean are the voters being asked to agree with or disagree with the statement “the Council should be allowed to give Notice?”  Personally I want the Council to be able to give OR DENY Notice and to do it in an honest way and based on the evidence and reflecting the best Seattle values. (Which means to deny Notice and thus to make Seattle a passive bystander or maybe to even oppose the Tunnel.)

Yes the structure seems odd to me. Or maybe I am missing something?

“The tunnel opponents will view this as a victory for their proposal, which is a surface/transit option.””

This is wrong.  For most tunnel opponents, their proposal is a viaduct.  Only about 20% of all Seattle voters prefer a surface/transit option.  Of these three options – viaduct, tunnel, surface/transit — the largest percentage of Seattle voters prefers a viaduct, as all polls on the subject show, including the most recent poll commissioned by publicola. 

O’Brien would have credibility if he was asking for the surface option to be put to a vote (which would of course go down in flames).  The game the two Mikes are playing to achieve their obtuse objective is inherently disingenuous and anarchistic, since it is predicated on killing and not solving. I feel empathy for the eight Councilmembers who are trying their best to work through the stones being thrown at them.

I totally agree with your comments.  The two Mike’s are very supportive of the efforts of a very narrow group of voters who share their hatred of cars and love of bicycles.  The tunnel will eventially be built, all the citizens of the Puget Sound area will enjoy a beautiful waterfront and we will have a new mayor in two years.  Pardon the pun but there is light at the end of the tunnel. 

with the tunnel toll at $3 or 4, who is going to use it? let’s get real, the tunnel IS a surface option – it’s just not putting enough money into transit to offset the tens of thousands of drivers that will be forced onto the streets. those that can’t afford the tolls, refuse to pay, or have to get off downtown anyway (as there is no downtown exit) will swarm the surface streets.

all this discussion about “commerce suffering” is complete and utter bullshit. in europe, they have whole sections of major cities that are carless pedestrian zones – and they’re thriving. how do they do this? commerce figured out how to move things outside of normal business hours (when the “pedestrian zones” are closed to cars). commerce adapts. drivers adapt. to pretend otherwise and sinking billions of dollars in something that was obsolete before the first pile was driven shows the complete lack of foresight, intelligence, and regard for the economic welfare of the taxpayers.

frankly, $5 gas is probably the best thing for this debate. energy costs aren’t going to get any cheaper, and sinking wasted dollars into this ridiculous waste of a project will hopefully cause a real paradigm shift.

 I love how you guys talk about this. You are so cynical. As I was saying to the two Mike’s last night after having a drink with Sigi – it’s Party Time!

 I love how you guys talk about this. You are so cynical. As I was saying to the two Mike’s last night after having a drink with Sigi – it’s Party Time!

 Well then if the tunnel is somehow stopped and surface/transit chosen, you should be able to easily collect enough signatures to put surface/transit policy to a referendum.

 We will be voting on whether the City Council is
authorized to issue a notice in a public meeting after issuance of the EIS.

This is beyond satire.

 It’s a state highway and lots of those trips are intracity trips that Seattle should be in charge of figuring out and paying for anyway, not the state. You must really love your car if you your best argument against the tunnel is that is not car-friendly enough.

It may indeed be funny but how else would you phrase it?
Considering the way that the Council has set things up.

This kind of crap is why Seattle process is ridiculed. The Council made a decision and we need to move on. McGinn has made this thing a joke. Council should be commended for sticking to their guns amid a very vocal and insignificant minority.

“Judge Middaugh said the council had set up an end run around the voters.”

Judge Middaugh made a fair decision. The issues may not be resolved, but those more than sufficient numbers of signatures who qualified have a democratic and citizen’s right to be heard. And to remember their representatives actions in next elections. Regardless of what the verbaige is, in voter’s mind’s this is a yea or nay on the DBT. It shouldn’t be left to the version of the Koch Bros newest future acquistion in the end.

Lot’s of things can disinfect in the sunshine. We don’t want to bury them in a tunnel instead.

Rassmussen must go down in the next election regardless of how all this ends up. Running tape loop answers and weasel talk don’t resovle any issues either. We need people who can get things right the first time, and can adapt to keep it on track, on major decsions within their influence or control. It would not take 10 years to come to some majority if the scope did not change so radically. People would have plenty of time to think about it, sitting in Gridlock and/or debtied $8 a day. That’s still avoidable at this time, but not by this referrendum– rather by the remaining Federal requirments. 

There wiil be a vote on a final policy decsion that deliberately made an attempted end run around due process.  They did not need to codify it in an ordinance. They can’t make any decisions final policy decisions until the final EIS sings, ordinance or not.

Mike McWinn is now King.

His imprimatur is gold.

Council members  who deign to go against him, go against the public.

If the Surface efforts result eventually in a still standing Viaduct….I will be displeased. 

Sorry to break it to you but you will probably see the Viaduct in existence ten years from now.

The only way for S/T to prevail is to acknowledge that it will take decade or two to put the infrastructure (needed to replace Viaduct capability) into place.

That means some reasonably substantial Repair to the Viaduct while we Prepare to tear it down. And that may sound ironic but life is full of ironies.

Let’s unpack your statement.

“The council made a decision…” The Council is not legally allowed to make a decision until the EIS is done. This is federal and state law, not “Seattle process.”

“…and we need to move on.” When would this argument not apply? “Well, it’s the worst choice that could be made, but it’s been made, so we should move on now.” It’s not the act of deciding that should be commended — it’s the act of making a good decision.

“Council should be commended for sticking to their guns amid a very vocal and insignificant minority.” EVERY poll shows that the tunnel is opposed by a large majority of voters.

So rhetoric is good, but reality is better.

Most polls favor a viaduct replacement. Be careful what you wish for.

This isn’t going to happen, even if your own pre-determined outcome is the least toxic of all the options to choose from.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

And why do you say that?
Just as a for example — and it is just a “for example” — suppose the voters go against the tunnel by 70-30.

Do you think that politicians, both here and statewide, will just ignore it?
What advantage would they have to refuse to reconsider?

I think that my scenaio is a reasonable one. Will it happen? Of course no one knows for sure. But there is a lot of uncertainty out there. A lot of angst and anger. Not clear how Seattlr voters are going to react.

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

“a subdued press conference”,  what we need to do is subdue the councils, the WDOT, and the Governors hubris.  I am amazed the rest of Washington voters are so quiet on this issue.
 

Every poll shows that the surface option is opposed by a much larger percentage of voters than oppose a tunnel or viaduct.  In fact, it is a very small percentage of voters whose first choice is the surface/transit option.

David,

Voters already opposed the tunnel by a similar margin, it moved forward regardless. and the next vote (should it occur) won’t be any more binding than the last one.

Not to say that I don’t think your scenario is a reasonable one, because I think it is. 

McGinn is still going to be a one-term mayor, and the Council incumbents will probably all be re-elected handily because the majority position among voters is that they want to see SOMETHING (other than S/T) to replace the AWV whether or not it happens to be the alternative they personally prefer.

Tragic isn’t it?

And all because different interests bought into the big myth that the Repair was too expensive.

What puzzles me is how easily people have been swayed that the Alaskan Way Viaduct can’t be repaired economically while we are just completing an equivalent task with the Spokane Street Viaduct. Literally at the same time. And Spokane Street Viaduct is somewhat longer than the AWV, had similar soil conditions, was done while traffic kept moving (albeit probably with some vexation) and it cost just $160 million.

Quite astonishing.

Big talk. Rasmussen will win by 20+ points. 

Yes. Yo’re getting all hung up on details, legalisms, logic, reason, seattle process, double reverse parsing of language blah blah blah.  the referendum language won’t matter.  it will be taken by most voters as “this is how you vote NO on the tunnel.”  Or yes.  I guarantee you not one single voter will think “well, actually I oppose the tunnel?  but I am voting to uphold the council ordinance because you know, assuming we HAVE the tunnel, they SHOULD give notice.”  And no will go thru the convoluted thought process the other way either.  “I am pro tunnel, but here the council was too easy and giving saying there’d be another notice, so I am voting againt the council on this law.”

People just take sides and get to the heart of it.  This is pro or anti tunnel.  Now, since I am not so literal and nerdy as most, of course there will be one or two, or 20 % of the voters who think about it the way you do, but seriously the vast majority just process these things ina bout twenty seconds.  “I love the tunnel I hate mcginn, I vote to uphodl the ordinanc3e!” or “I hate the tunnel I hate the council, I vote no!”  

you’d be right except for your passiave aggressive horse puckey. you want the surface option to go down in flames?  go use the pro tunnel majority on the council to get enuf balls to put it on the ballot.  go ahead, we dare you.  tell them to put 4 options on the ballot.  tell them to have IRV too.  Go ahead.   Do it.  Stop whining that other people don’t do it.  OBrien is in the minority on this.  YOUR SIDE is the majority on the council, sto whining and do it.  The two mikes are being perfectly clear:  they are antu tunnel.  “Anarchistic”?  WTF?  you mean like throwing bomcs ‘n’ stuff?  Hyperbole much?  Empathy for the councilmembers who face stones being thrown?  What a crybaby the pro tunnel people are.  Here’s wht you  do.  (a) put DBT on the ballot, up or down.  (b) chalelnge mcginn to resign if DBT wins a majority.  I mean of course he’ll hve to agree it’s his whole program, right?  you can shame him into it.  But I bet he’ll say yes.  (c) have the damn election.

Stop whining and do it.    

if DBT has a majority put your money where your mouth is and put DBT on the ballot up or down, yes or no.

the council can do it.  They’re chicken.  Because it will LOSE.   

FAIL WRONG.  No poll shows a majority for rebuilt.  And you know it too.  If that’s your desire, though you are challenged.  go put it on the ballot up or down, yes or no.  You’re not going to are you?  Because you know it will LOSE and your statement is WRONG.   

every poll shows fewer people suppport us having troops in pakistan, than support our invasion of iraq.

Therefore, we should keep our troops in Afghanistan.  

David, you cna’t repair the viaduct.  We have a fountain of gas tax money to spend, and hundreds of SDOT jobs that hve to be used for something.  Repairing it doesn’t ensure as much money gets spent or as many jobs are needed to “supervise” the contractors.  Clearly, you don’t understand the politics of dedicated funding.  It’s like the funding for regular things.  You know how agencies hurry to spend their allocation as the fiscal year ends, just because it’s been allocated?  Well gas tax funds are sort of like that, except they’re premanently allocated.  So WSDOT has to come up with scary scenarios to spend it in big, big chunks, that way they ensure their own jobs the best.  When it’s spent in smaller chunks the accountability is still somewhat in place.  But one HUUUGE chunk — my god the mid level supervisers can count on a 12 yewar project and steady advancement they can practically calculate their retirement pay 12 years from now, now.  

no surprise, their legislators got a law passed putting seattle on the hook for overruns.  Sweeeeeet!  It’s just another teaser rate scam, seems like politicians are copying the housing bubble in new sectors right and left.  The legislators get the project started, they stick it to seattle, the voters in wenatchee eat this shit up!  Then 8 or 13 years later the overruns hit and the legislation meltdown ocurrs, but the legislators are long gone.  We’ve already seen Nickels go, Sims went, and Gregoire is about to go.  They get paid and promoted up front, see, after selling this teaser rate project on the down low to us fools, and when it blows up they’re no longer around.  Gregoire will probably be prmoted to the solicitor general spot where she will spend her time NOT prosecuting AIG, banksters and  torturers. 

I personally get a huge kick out of seeing Bailo and designated Slog laughingstock Will In Seattle propping the Mayor like he actually enjoys any support beyond the narrow confines of the CBC and part of the 43rd.  It’s a circle jerk between the three most delusional, loudmouthed people in Seattle. 

“Sorry to break it to you but you will probably see the Viaduct in existence ten years from now.”

Bye bye David’s credibility. Structure won’t make it that long. 

So who are you? and what is your expertise?

Actually, Bailo lives in Kent and his usual schtick is how awesome Kent is and how mass transit is slavery. This  is a quite a detour for him.

It gets more votes than any other option – and you’re either deliberately misreading the comment or being disingenuous.

Slight correction – Bailo is a delusional loudmouth from Kent.

Slight correction – Bailo is a delusional loudmouth from Kent.

Sure it will – barring a major earthquake, which may or may not happen in that time.  Retrofitting the structure was taken off of the table after WSDOT changed the criteria from it surviving a likely (say Nisqually-level) seismic event to being usable after a 500 year quake.  Kind of a difference, there.

I’ll happily keep driving on the AWV until the day they stop letting me.

what?  “it gets more votes than any other option” doesn’t even disagree with what I said which is it doesnt’ get a majority.  And when I said you know it, it seems you do, as you promptly clarified and changed the above statement saying polls favor, suggesting a majority, to noting it’s a mere plurality.  so it’s not me being misleading, you’ve shown I am accurate.  rebuild does not get a majority.  got it?  so again you are challenged, you want a rebuild, go put it on the ballot, up or down, yes or no.  Not goint to do that, right?  Because you know:  it will LOSE.  And that’s said with utter ingenuousness.  

 So long as well agree that we’re all pretending to vote on something different than we’re actually voting on, and the the vote will have no legal or binding consequences.

Nice work, Seattle. 

 The cheapest (or perceived cheapest) will always win.

If I were the tunnel folks, I’d start tying that option to the beautiful photos that are coming out of James Corner. Near as I can tell, we only that cool stuff if we build the tunnel.  

 Yes, I stand corrected. 

So if the referendum is put on the ballot and is approved on Tuesday, then what happens on Wednesday ? Are all the guys and gals who were working on the Viaduct  the week before suddenly out of a job ? Seriously, what does this referendum mean ?

Council et al should have done an honest job in the first place.

The council can’t do it. It’s not a City of Seattle project. A whole lot of whining has been done about this….  It’s state property. A state project. The people of seattle don’t have anything to say about it. Or are property rights not the same in Seattle as the rest of the universe??? 

As one of those narrow group of voters, it’s not so much of a hatred of cars as it is a disappointment with an auto-oriented society. It’s like how I’m able to able to enjoy the occasional high-fat and sugar food, while still being sad about our society’s problem with obesity and diabetes. In both cases, enjoyable moderation is great, but overconsumption has become a serious problems for our physical, social, and environmental health that we have to deal with. And bandying false wars between cars and bikes does absolutely nothing to fixing those problems. It just makes us petty and small.

Lamest reasoning yet, bud. Look up where tax money is earned vs. where it’s spent in WA. I’ll save you a trip. The majority of money is made in King County, and the rest of the state’s counties are all sucklings. People in other counties should be “paying” for our roads, so we can get to work and pay for their local projects. My intracity trip gets me to work so I can pay property taxes so people in other counties can fix their potholes.

 Is it possible for you to distinguish between a
— Tear Down and Rebuild
versus
— Repair in Place?

If you cannot, then may I suggest that you should.

It certainly does have consequence.
The City cannot stop the Tunnel per se.
But it can certainly oppose it.

I am not asking you to change your position, whatever it is.

All I am asking you to acknowledge that there is a big difference between being neutral or even opposing the Tunnel versus being vigorously in favor.

Oh right, so lets just give money straight to seattle’s transportation department instead of making it a state highway. And those potholes you fix of there’s make it so the trucks can get food from those counties into Seattle so that you can eat to make more money to fix more of their potholes.

Intracity trips should not be the focus of state highways.

dumbass, i mean jakers,

10 blocks north and south of the viaduct, is it a highway or a surface street?

dumbass, i mean jakers,

10 blocks north and south of the viaduct, is it a highway or a surface street?

It’s a surface street that is a designated state highway.  And also something I would not want to see running down the waterfront.

it means there’s an advisory vote in seattle on yes or no on the tunnel, that’s what it means.  it means the political cost of supporting the tunnel is higher for those in seattle supporting it.  if the vote loses, the opposite.  this changes the political equation, and the way politics happens is like this:  sometimes a project doesn’t die all at once, sometimes it just keeps …..not getting implemented…..higher costs come out….contractors seek more guarantees…..the payoff is revised, now it’s downt o 45K trips a day……someone notices that drivers in america are all shifting away from driving with $4 gas so other toll and parking revenue projections are called into question…the times writes a stsory questioning the toll projections here…the DBT couldn’t win a vote and lost by the narrow margin of 52 48…..or the stunningly landslide margin of 60 to 40.,….this vote and the information produced in a public campaign on it drives the facts home to more folks in seattle, thus broadening the anti tunnel % in seattle…city council candidates who are anti tunnel knock off one or two of the council members, suddenly it’s obrien AND two others….the state revises cost estimates against, oopsie, they’re 20% higher…..projects accumulate bad news for a long time till they’re built you need a ST level “defense” to make it through ….maybe at some point it’s definitie enough for some voter to sue on the cost overrun or the legislative cap law…how can a legislature put a cap on itself?  that’s unconstitutional….there’s litigation and more uncertainty…eventually the thing dies.  That’s how tthis vote has impact, it’s all tied together in amaelstrom of feelings, facts, organization, message, lawsuits, media play, donations and power…it’s called “politics.”  It doesn’t stop on “Wednesday” is the answer and losing a vote is a major setback.   

It actually means nothing.  My understanding is that it overturns a couple of a procedural city agreements but can’t actually stop the project. 

What the surface group is hoping is that this vote will scuttle the tunnel project, a subsequent vote will scuttle the new elevated project (which would follow), a subsequent vote after that would scuttle a rebuild project and then, finally, we would all be forced into loving a six-lane highway on the waterfront. They won’t tell you this outright because they know how stupid it sounds, but that’s basically what the path forward. 

I think what you’re saying is seattle isn’t allowed to have an official position of supporting or opposing the DBT. If so you’re wrong.  If your notion of property rights is we as citizens and as a city can’t speak up, um, same conclusion.  if it’s not a city of seattle project then I guess the council shouldn’t be taking any action at all on it, right?  but they did right?  so we have a right to …you know…not be their slaves ‘n’ stuff, they work for us right?  so your entire premise is in shambles, right?  or is your premise we in seattle are the property of the state, that wasn’t clear.  face it.  we get a SAY even if it’s not OUR city project, big duh.  god, can’t you come up with something better than that?  I suggest you answer the question why should the city support something that a majority fo city residents don’t support.  that there is the basic issue.  guess what “because we must do something!!!!!” is no more true than rabanco saying “you must act NOW!” 

“ why should the city support something that a majority fo city residents don’t support.”
they shouldn’t. As elected representatives they should reflect the City populace opinion. My “premise” is that since it is a state highway, built by the state, on state owned property, they should be able to do what they want. Yes, they have to submit a EIS to the city as the property is in Seattle. If they do a project in the city of Washtucna, they have to submit a EIS to them. Anybody can have their own opinion about the Tunnel. That there is one rather fanatical opinion is well represented by this blog.

You guys are just a******s. 

I agree with you about the health issues per obesity and diabetes. I’ve been there and back.

But as one who lost the weight in part through bike commuting I look at Mike McGinn and wonder if he practices what he preaches. Supposedly his commute is longer than mine. 

Stick to the topic at hand please.

BTW I accidently hit “like” when I meant to hit “reply”. 

How many council members who voted for the tunnel were ousted last election? Remember they voted for that preference prior to the 2009 election.
 
I believe the answer is none. 

Thanks. I always take that as a compliment. 

Doesn’t he take the Sounder though? 

Au contraire – I think a solid case can be made that dragging this issue out will generate numbers against politicians (eg McGinn and O’Brien) who are the ones who are impediments to doing SOMETHING about the AWV, even if those same voters aren’t particularly wild about any of the alternatives at hand.

There is no majority for any alternative, but there IS a majority of people (you know, regular voters who don’t obsess about this stuff and aren’t among the 100+ people who live and die by blogging on Publicola/Slog/Crosscut) who feel this issue has been talked/delayed/processed to death, and are more likely to punish candidates at the polls for obstructionism than they are to reward people who support their particular preferred alternative because this issue isn’t really their litmus test for who they plan to vote for.

Outside of this particular online bubble, politicians are far more likely to lose their jobs over supporting parking rate hikes or failing to clear snow-covered streets (or for kicking the homeless, to give a nod to former City Attorney and would-be Mayor Mark Sidran) than they are for supporting the tunnel plan.

STOP THE CRAZY!!!!   EVERYTHING will fail in a vote…everything!  There is not ONE option for replacing the viaduct that has over 50% support.  33% of the folks want a surface option. 33% want a cut & cover tunnel, 33% want the deep tunnel.  Not exact numbers (grin) but the point is there is NO agreement on the replacement, which is why passive aggressive scared Seattle has spent 10+ years “depating” this, having meeting after meeting after meeting, vote after vote (I still remember the LAST vote to “decide” this).  Stop it!   NOTHING you do has no risks, costs…nothing you do will have 70% support of the public.  Get on with it.  No on is RUSHING this, we’ve talked about this for 10 years, move on, we DO have other issues to discuss.

well of course you may be right.  it’s politics.  we agree on that.  so, If you think there’s a coalition in favor of “let’s do something/anything, no matter the cost !” good luck with that.  put the DBT on the ballot up or down, try to win on that argument.  WE MUST ACT NOW,.  Works for Ronco alla time.  

“Everything will fail in a vote” — another compelling argument.   how exactly does that take you to the next step of “get on with it?”

Why doesn’t that lead to this: 80% agree it must come down.  So, let’s take that step together, hand in hand singing kumbaya!  Then we will see won’t we?  DBT fans argue that we will have INSUFFERABLE GRIDLOCK.  Well if so, that wuld shift the less than majroity numbers in youf favor!  Brilliant!  Call OUR bluff dudes!!!!  SHOW US THE GRIDLOCK.  Act as though you had the courage of your convictions either by putting DBT on the ballot up or down, or taking down the AWV right now.  Come on, it could be down in 8 months right!  Isn’t that the way to end the argument, mmmm?  A unique opportunity to see if we get gridlock, worse than what we have now, or if people adjust.  Wow,  a sample, a test, how wonderful.

Oh wait DBT proponents don’t want to do anything that puts it to the test, never mind. 

well of course you may be right.  it’s politics.  we agree on that.  so, If you think there’s a coalition in favor of “let’s do something/anything, no matter the cost !” good luck with that.  put the DBT on the ballot up or down, try to win on that argument.  WE MUST ACT NOW,.  Works for Ronco alla time.  

“Everything will fail in a vote” — another compelling argument.   how exactly does that take you to the next step of “get on with it?”

Why doesn’t that lead to this: 80% agree it must come down.  So, let’s take that step together, hand in hand singing kumbaya!  Then we will see won’t we?  DBT fans argue that we will have INSUFFERABLE GRIDLOCK.  Well if so, that wuld shift the less than majroity numbers in youf favor!  Brilliant!  Call OUR bluff dudes!!!!  SHOW US THE GRIDLOCK.  Act as though you had the courage of your convictions either by putting DBT on the ballot up or down, or taking down the AWV right now.  Come on, it could be down in 8 months right!  Isn’t that the way to end the argument, mmmm?  A unique opportunity to see if we get gridlock, worse than what we have now, or if people adjust.  Wow,  a sample, a test, how wonderful.

Oh wait DBT proponents don’t want to do anything that puts it to the test, never mind. 

ay yes “there will be no overruns” and “pay no attention to that law, we didn’t mean it!” and “hey let’s spend a few billion to move 45K vehicles a day two miles” certainly represents a fanatical opinion unhinged to any reason, facts and argument.  Oh and btw that EIS?  it’s for the agency making the decision.  The Decider.  Becuase the Decider is supposed to consider environmental impacts.  Before, you know, Deciding?  So add that to the fanatical claims “it’s a done deal!  everyone is on board!” 

Are Seattleites fighting it in those areas? Nope. Do those areas connect to other parts of the state outside of the city? Yes. Just because there are intra-city trips happening on it doesn’t make it a bad use of state money, but if those sections needed to be rebuilt above or below grade, intra-city trips should not be the focus.

Former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer’s outgoing comments about the “Seattle Process” rings so true today, where he observed that Seattle will chew on an issue over and over and over, but can never seem to swallow, and even when Seattle does finally swallow, regurgitation is allowed.

As I understand it, the winning vote if put in front of Seattleites would be “replace/reinforce existing” .

hardly applicable — we haven’t had a vote on DBT tunnel yet. Another misleading statement by DBT folks.

Actually, 43% of Seattle voters supported an elevated replacement for the AWV at last count.  The so-called “surface/transit” non-option would probably pull about half of that.

You might want to try pulling your head from your nether regions rather than your figures.

Acolytes? Nah, I mastered the art of clowning little angry guys like you back when Clinton was Prez.  

well put repair replace on the ballot, too.  up or down.  put all 3, or all4 or all 5 options on the ballot up or down, and do what gets majority support.  That’s democracy right?  (I mean, ahve the city official position be what the majority supports).  .   
My figure of 80% you attackis a guess.  Wow, you did a gotcha.  Ouc, ouch ouch.  Yes it came from nowhere….but all three options require that step right esp. your own.  ,whether it’s 80% or 90% or 95% I don’t know.  But it’s your 43% it’s the DBT % and its the surface %. So why not let’s join hands, and teaer down this wall mmm?  Bonus:  we’d find out if we get insuffereable gridlock or if people simply ADJUST. 
So.  Care to put your money where your mouth is, and agree we must …..

Yes, he is a slave because of that. 

I have no problem putting all three options on the ballot, as I have no problem with the FACT that an elevated replacement would get the most votes.  By far.

Great.

Next, let’s have a vote between the DBT, surface/transit, and rebuild. The top two advance to a final vote. Wheee!

I don’t live in Seattle and I’m not a “DBT (I guess that means deep bore tunnel) folk(s)” – I was making an observation about the “Seattle Process,” which your very comment validates former Mayor Royer’s parting shot. 

We elect public officials to represent us and make decisions on our behalf, and if we don’t like the decisions they make we have the right to replace them in the next election. What’s the point of having tax dollars pay for the salaries of our elected representatives in government if every decision has to go to a vote?

Huh?  What are we voting on?  I don’t really understand either ballot question and I actually pay attention to this stuff.