Campaign Fizz: Anti-Tunnel Edition

Cary who?

Go, Cary, go!

The Cary who sat on the Stakeholder’s Committee that recommended ST5 (and maybe a tunnel in addition, if it didn’t actually cost the 2 billion dollars that everyone knew it would) before two ex-officials and one lame duck decided to throw out all the work they did and move forward with the tunnel in isolation.

Do try to keep up.

Please…tear down the Viaduct…and walk away.

Then let Seattle build something worthwhile…like a shopping plaza and outdoor/indoor nighttime entertainment spot.

Just like in New York City.

Just like this:

http://jabailo.tumblr.com/post/7332059490/yesterday-night-at-times-square-all-the-screens

Why was Cary Moon on the “stakeholders committee”?  Who does she represent, other than people who hate the viaduct?  Was she elected by anyone to represent them?

John, why not right of way elevated transit, just like NYC, e.g. #7 Flushing or #1 Washington Heights?  That would help us more than a tunnel or a surface option.  We’ve got conspicuous consumption plazas and entertainment spots all over the sound and they won’t help people get from point A to B in a timely fashion.

I would just like to know which legislator has committed to “doing the right thing for Seattle?”  And if that is in fact true, then wouldn’t it also mean the legislature would do the right thing for Seattle for not binding them with cost overruns?  Am I missing something?  The legislature is losing its patience. I want to know how the anti-tunnel folks will convince a legislature to give money for transit when they have done it in the last two years when transit is cutting services and literally dying a slow painful death.  This just goes to show that “tunnel visioned” (pun intended) ideologues don’t understand political reality.

I don’t see that as being true.   For a city that purports to be world class — and there are many world famous attractions here — there is still no large scale, truly great night time area like times square.   Widening the waterfront from the edge all the way to the foot of Pike Place Market would create that unique space with views of the water, restaurants, entertainment.   Something big, wide, strollable.

That would work all year round if it had a “raindome” area for wet days.   The point being, if there’s no “Point B” like now, why is everyone rushing to get there?    We’re building transit, but not creating value.    A surface street + a wide commercially and entertainment oriented plaza, lit up like a candle at night, would draw people from the region and the world for good wholesome fun, just like Times Square.

They can be the best litigators in the world, but you can’t make someone not a party to a contract pay for the thing. The State cannot do that to a City by any stretch of the imagination nor more than they could order us to build the whole thing ourselves. 

Should their be overruns and the State says they won’t pay they still would not sue us, but the State who signed the contract. Hell what sense would it even make for them to try when you have the deepest pockets in the area as a party. Why try and invent some legal theory by which the City has to pay when in any case where we would(i.e. the Contract requires that you keep paying), the State would be too.  

This is and always has been a nonsense issue.  

If you don’t know who she is, maybe you should google her and find out.

How does spending bilions and billions on a tolled bypass freeway that includes no money for transit (and actually makes it worse by making it harder for people to get downtown) help transit service? I want to know how we’re going to pay for the tunnel, WSDOT won’t even release a financing plan. And how are the pro-tunnel folks going to convince the legislature to pay for cost overruns (or at a minimum explain who will pay and how) when state law (and legislators laughing at Seattle) put Seattle taxpayers on the hook?

John, I agree that the night life in Seattle is minimal to nonexistant, true, true. The thing is, the surface plus isn’t going to create a vibrant night life, neither is a tunnel. You can google images of scenes underneath a bridge in Hong Kong and see how vibrant and alive it is underneath there; a rec area with ping pong tables, an outdoor food court area, and a bustling people and no cars intersection, all protected from the wet weather with the bridge above. Bridges are world class structures.

Not all anti-tunnel folk are surface plus people. Many favor an elevated. And to those of you who say it’s not possible to build an elevated, evidence says otherwise.

Did you not read about the Raindome that I proposed?

This would keep people dry and let them see the water.

“Outdoor” ping pong, but enclosed in a Raindome would be very cool.

Also block hockey.

Okay, I googled her and just come up with her being a strong opponent of the tunnel and a landscape architect.  Are landscape architects rare?  Instead of ‘google her’, could you post some highlights for why she is well-known or influential?  Google wasn’t helping (insert ad for Bing?)

People say McGinn has a bad relationship with the State government. Can you imagine how bad the relationship would be between the State and Mayor Burgess or whoever if the State was trying to enforce its laws and pass the costs to Seattle and Seattle was standing tough? I mean, is one government going to have to sue the other at some point? I think they will! Can you imagine what an unbelievable clusterfuck that will be? To have three parties, all trying to pass the cost overruns onto the other two, almost certainly in court, and people think that while this is happening, it’ll get done on time and on budget? How unbelievably credulous do you have to be to not be concerned about this?

People say McGinn has a bad relationship with the State government. Can you imagine how bad the relationship would be between the State and Mayor Burgess or whoever if the State was trying to enforce its laws and pass the costs to Seattle and Seattle was standing tough? I mean, is one government going to have to sue the other at some point? I think they will! Can you imagine what an unbelievable clusterfuck that will be? To have three parties, all trying to pass the cost overruns onto the other two, almost certainly in court, and people think that while this is happening, it’ll get done on time and on budget? How unbelievably credulous do you have to be to not be concerned about this?

People say McGinn has a bad relationship with the State government. Can you imagine how bad the relationship would be between the State and Mayor Burgess or whoever if the State was trying to enforce its laws and pass the costs to Seattle and Seattle was standing tough? I mean, is one government going to have to sue the other at some point? I think they will! Can you imagine what an unbelievable clusterfuck that will be? To have three parties, all trying to pass the cost overruns onto the other two, almost certainly in court, and people think that while this is happening, it’ll get done on time and on budget? How unbelievably credulous do you have to be to not be concerned about this?

That’s how I do all my planning: Ignore the troublesome details at the beginning, and if it doesn’t work out as planned, just hope I don’t get sued, and that someone else does.

Someone should ask Cary if she will finally move on if people vote YES in August.

That might reflect the truth about whether this is the “start” after 10 years, or the obvious finish to a fight she really lost years ago,

Someone should ask Cary if she will finally move on if people vote YES in August.

That might reflect the truth about whether this is the “start” after 10 years, or the obvious finish to a fight she really lost years ago,

Meanwhile in other places people are busy having wonderful lives without all the hand ringing about transit, bikes,  tolls and tunnels…  Imagine…

Meanwhile in other places people are busy having wonderful lives without all the hand ringing about transit, bikes,  tolls and tunnels…  Imagine…

There is no law that makes the City of Seattle liable nor would that law even remotely be enforceable if there was. This is a made up argument by people who find lying an acceptable approach to public policy.   

There is not enough of a basis for a lawsuit against Seattle to survive even the most basic motion to dismiss. 

statutes can make someone not a party pay for a thing.  we have a statute capping the state share and one expressing intent to stick seattle.  we can’t say seattle isn’t on notice.  it may be true there would need to be additional legislation, but no contractor in the world is so stoooooopid as to somehow contract for the upside of overruns willy nilly; everyone knows the state share is capped by statute; that statute governs, just like laws against discrimination “govern” a private contract — you see your premise is the contract is the only law and that ain’t true baby — and gregoire admitted the leg will try to enforce the overrun provision and she promised to veto it.

oh wait — she won’t be around.

oh wait — a veto can be overriden anyway.

oh wait — the contractor wouldn’t sue us?  you do not know litigation.  a contractor in a mind to sue will sue the state AND the city.  they go after all pockets, not just deepest pockets.  and as to why the legal theory against city is stronger than against the state, see above (the state law CAPS the state obligation).

this kind of breezy what me worry approach to prospective ligitaion is like the approach we took to the fannie mae obligations, the derivatives downside risks, AIG etc.  It’s simply reckless and wanton indiffrence to hooooooge risks.  The way the risks materialize can come in different ways: years of litigation; a halted project during same; massive costs and I mean like $50 million in legal fees for the city; even a “nuisance” settlemnt of a $800 million claim could be $80 millino for the city; all of that and also anthing also leading to losing the suit and the city being on the hook; or a combined legal political consequence in which the leg can’t formally stick us with overruns but gets so darn mad at us they deprive the city of other funds.  Your blindness to all these downsides is the epitome of recklessness in financial risk. 

Nightlife is minimal?

A pregnant lady got capped last night in the Valley and three others were shot, sounds like its hopping to me

Nightlife is minimal?

A pregnant lady got capped last night in the Valley and three others were shot, sounds like its hopping to me

Nightlife is minimal?

A pregnant lady got capped last night in the Valley and three others were shot, sounds like its hopping to me

Nightlife is minimal?

A pregnant lady got capped last night in the Valley and three others were shot, sounds like its hopping to me

No no no. That is not how it works at all. Seattle is not on notice at all. You have a vague reference to “Seattle Area property owners” but that in no way implies the City of Seattle. Nor can the State, under our Constitution tax a subset of the population or demand a City pay. It is just not allowed. A statute by the government making someone pay for something without their agreement is a tax and taxes are regulated by the constitution. But that is neither here nor there as no statute making or attempting to make Seattle pay is on the books.  

If they tried to sue us we would be dismissed in a heartbeat as there is no legal obligation on our part at all. No different than if me and my neighbor had a dispute and I sued the one across the street because they have money too. By your logic the state could pass a law that says Boeing has to pay for overruns, or the Mayor personally. 

Your little fantasy in no way represents what the law actually is on this. 

“…but gets so darn mad at us they deprive the city of other funds.”

You could say the same thing about us shutting down their project. 

No no no. That is not how it works at all. Seattle is not on notice at all. You have a vague reference to “Seattle Area property owners” but that in no way implies the City of Seattle. Nor can the State, under our Constitution tax a subset of the population or demand a City pay. It is just not allowed. A statute by the government making someone pay for something without their agreement is a tax and taxes are regulated by the constitution. But that is neither here nor there as no statute making or attempting to make Seattle pay is on the books.  

If they tried to sue us we would be dismissed in a heartbeat as there is no legal obligation on our part at all. No different than if me and my neighbor had a dispute and I sued the one across the street because they have money too. By your logic the state could pass a law that says Boeing has to pay for overruns, or the Mayor personally. 

Your little fantasy in no way represents what the law actually is on this. 

“…but gets so darn mad at us they deprive the city of other funds.”

You could say the same thing about us shutting down their project. 

No no no. That is not how it works at all. Seattle is not on notice at all. You have a vague reference to “Seattle Area property owners” but that in no way implies the City of Seattle. Nor can the State, under our Constitution tax a subset of the population or demand a City pay. It is just not allowed. A statute by the government making someone pay for something without their agreement is a tax and taxes are regulated by the constitution. But that is neither here nor there as no statute making or attempting to make Seattle pay is on the books.  

If they tried to sue us we would be dismissed in a heartbeat as there is no legal obligation on our part at all. No different than if me and my neighbor had a dispute and I sued the one across the street because they have money too. By your logic the state could pass a law that says Boeing has to pay for overruns, or the Mayor personally. 

Your little fantasy in no way represents what the law actually is on this. 

“…but gets so darn mad at us they deprive the city of other funds.”

You could say the same thing about us shutting down their project. 

No no no. That is not how it works at all. Seattle is not on notice at all. You have a vague reference to “Seattle Area property owners” but that in no way implies the City of Seattle. Nor can the State, under our Constitution tax a subset of the population or demand a City pay. It is just not allowed. A statute by the government making someone pay for something without their agreement is a tax and taxes are regulated by the constitution. But that is neither here nor there as no statute making or attempting to make Seattle pay is on the books.  

If they tried to sue us we would be dismissed in a heartbeat as there is no legal obligation on our part at all. No different than if me and my neighbor had a dispute and I sued the one across the street because they have money too. By your logic the state could pass a law that says Boeing has to pay for overruns, or the Mayor personally. 

Your little fantasy in no way represents what the law actually is on this. 

“…but gets so darn mad at us they deprive the city of other funds.”

You could say the same thing about us shutting down their project. 

Ms. Moon was put on the stakeholders committee because she was anti retrofit and anti anything overhead at any location, even at the pierhead.

Also on the committee was a member of the ILWU.  How did that happen?

Missing from the stakeholders committee were representatives from the Teamsters Union (people who actually drive big rigs), AAA, the American Trucking Association and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, to name a few who are professionals in the industry.

As for landscape architects, why the mayor’s transportation aide is a landscape architect.

Need I say more?

You should let Lisa Brown (Senate Majority Leader), Rep. Bruce Dammeier (House Republican), Mike Hewett (Senator Minority Leader), and Larry Springer (House Majority Liason) know. They all say Seattle’s on the hook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJHe-9Pef_c

Well if politicians say it then it must be true! 

I don’t much care what they say. Find a law that says that the City of Seattle, the municipal corporation, is liable. 

Sorry if I take their word over that of a pseudonymous internet commenter. I am not sure if the law is enforceable but I’d rather find out now than when we are 2/3rds of the way through digging. Like it or not the state’s contribution is capped and when overruns happen there will be a shitshow figuring out who pays and how and I am not looking forward to that.

Moon has a lot of nothing to say. Nothing but trite, meaningless arguments: “Voting ‘no’ is a vote to say yes to a solution that’s pragmatic and affordable.” That doesn’t mean anything! “Just by getting the contracts signed, we’re not solving anything-we’re opening the door.” That doesn’t mean anything!
-
Moon, McGinn, and their ilk are trying to sabotage a needed project by bloating the cost with their obstructionism. This is a settled issue; build the darn tunnel already!

Find a majority in the legislature to make it so, by future legislation. There is one. That’s really what this is about.

To clarify, the city is a creature of state law, which can be amended.

Or, the legislature would create a special taxing district congruous with Seattle, then tax everyone in that area to pay for the overruns.

This is why the tunnel is stupid.

They have as much or more cumulative hand wringing over the price of gas to fill their SUV’s.

The State Constitution does not allow the State to tax a city or a subset of the population like this. You can go read it yourself if you do not believe me. See Article VII Section 1 for starters. Then check out Article XI Section 12. 

The legislature can certainly create a special district, but that district has to levy the tax, not the legislature. 

The risk of cost over-run is only one of many more calamitous risks with the bored tunnel. A dozen or so buildings downtown are officially admitted likely to be damaged by intense vibration with drilling and standard construction. Hundreds of buildings will likely be damaged during construction and after for a number of causes - settling, altered underground pressures, ”voids” that develop and cause sinkholes, earthquakes and even the dire threat of some rightwing militant wackjob carbomb plotters can’t be ruled out. The failure of the bored tunnel during construction and after is a given. It won’t last a generation before it will be closed but even thereafter its presence threatens the structural integrity of buildings above, you greedy fucking idiots.    

Cary owns a condo in the Hillclimb Court building (the concrete and pink building on Western between the PP Market and the viaduct). She is among the handful of mythical property owners who will supposedly reap huge financial reward once the viaduct is torn down.

Whether you believe that makes her a knowledgeable, interested party or a NIMBY is a matter of opinion.

SWEET JESUS we need more pavement! More more more! It’s so _needed_ so I can drive to South Lake Union a few minutes faster instead of taking one of the half-dozen other routes.

Calling the bored tunnel ”a settled issue” is meaningless. Far too many questions are left unanswered by Washington State’s Highway Robbery ilk.        

I don’t believe her when she says “Fighting is not fun.”

But we are spending $600 million per mile for a lite rail tunnel so people can save a few minutes on trips between UW and downtown, instead of taking one of the other routes. 

How much concrete is going into that lite rail tunnel?

“The state money can be used for on the ground improvements to city streets and transit.”

The “money” (gas taxes) can’t be used this way under our current constitution. Saying so is either naive (unlikely), or disingenuous.

Assuming that State Legislators are “going to do the right thing for Seattle” is a nice thought, but their recent actions in regards to the AWV project have not supportive.  Shifting $400 million of funding away from the AWV program to the SR 520 project has created a need for more aggressive tolling, and the infamous ”cost overrun” provision is hard to view as the “right” thing for Seattle. 

“The state money can be used for on the ground improvements to city streets and transit.”

The “money” (gas taxes) can’t be used this way under our current constitution. Saying so is either naive (unlikely), or disingenuous.

Assuming that State Legislators are “going to do the right thing for Seattle” is a nice thought, but their recent actions in regards to the AWV project have not supportive.  Shifting $400 million of funding away from the AWV program to the SR 520 project has created a need for more aggressive tolling, and the infamous ”cost overrun” provision is hard to view as the “right” thing for Seattle. 

Your world view is extremely narrow…  Get out there and have a look around…

Your world view is extremely narrow…  Get out there and have a look around…

“Voting ‘no’ is a vote to say yes to a solution that’s pragmatic and affordable.”

Pure BS. Voting “no” simply encourages the faction that wants to tear down the AWV and do more or less nothing, the faction that wants a new six-lane elevated freeway, the faction that wants to retrofit the existing AWV eyesore, the faction that wants a cut and cover replacement, and the faction that wants to deep bore to all continue squabbling for another decade or two.

Did I miss anyone’s faction?

“Voting ‘no’ is a vote to say yes to a solution that’s pragmatic and affordable.”

Pure BS. Voting “no” simply encourages the faction that wants to tear down the AWV and do more or less nothing, the faction that wants a new six-lane elevated freeway, the faction that wants to retrofit the existing AWV eyesore, the faction that wants a cut and cover replacement, and the faction that wants to deep bore to all continue squabbling for another decade or two.

Did I miss anyone’s faction?

Yes, go Cary, far far away

In this as in most major public works decision making processes (at least in a so-called democracy), those who show up make/inform the decision making. Cary organized and she showed up. And she’s been staying organized and showing up for years, which is more than can be said for many of the ‘stakeholders’ in this process. E.g., http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/

In this as in most major public works decision making processes (at least in a so-called democracy), those who show up make/inform the decision making. Cary organized and she showed up. And she’s been staying organized and showing up for years, which is more than can be said for many of the ‘stakeholders’ in this process. E.g., http://www.peopleswaterfront.org/

If only the committee was made up exclusively of wealthy land developers, we wouldn’t be having these issues.

She didn’t just “show up”.  The “stakeholders committee” was a sham.  The people on that committee were appointed by then-mayor Greg Nickels.  They were overwhelmingly people who hated the viaduct and would never support a new or repaired viaduct.  That is why they were chosen.

To say Cary Moon, just “showed up” is utterly ignorant.  She was appointed by Greg Nickels because she hates the viaduct and hates cars.  And, as I said before, she represented nobody and was elected by nobody.

In a democracy, this decision would have been put to an honest vote of the citizens, and all polls have shown that an elevated highway had the most public support.

Let’s revisit the list of stakeholders. E.g., how does Mary Hurley “represent Ballard/Fremont.” She’s a Ballard business owner and chamber leader. In fact, she and two other stakeholders, Warren Aakervik and Gene Hoglund, explicitly supported an elevated solution: http://www.myballard.com/2008/12/27/ballard-council-members-push-for-elevated-viaduct/ So, go through the list and give us a tally of how “overwhelmingly” the stakeholders hated the viaduct and would never support a new or repaired one.

Cary Moon represents a lot more of us than you would like, apparently.

I am no fan of the slanted decision making that usually occurs when big money is involved, but it is ludicrous to suggest that every decision should be by “honest vote.” You mean as opposed to a dishonest vote? It’s been a long time since “the people” did much at the polls other than jam a stick into the spokes—like Eyman’s ignorant & angry crap—and elect politicians who can’t keep their populist promises once elected.

The UW Link tunnel is a vast improvement in capacity, speed, reliability, energy efficiency and comfort over the bus routes along the corridor. It’s guaranteed to reduce traffic. Your idiotic deep bore tunnel, on the other hand, is cursed by the devil, bwah-ah-ah-ah. Fear the bored tunnel and die, mortal.        

So you would like to believe. Why don’t they remove that clause it if it’s unenforcable? Why are some State legislators saying the Seattle will absolutely be on the hook for the overruns, as the State limit is 2.4 billion? Why is the POS silent about how the LID will be defined?

Some people don’t get the connection between tolling and cost overruns too. How long do you thnk tens of billions in overruns and legal fees fighting over it will take to pay off in tolls, expecially when toll revenue turns out much lower than expected?