Today's Seattle Times editorial says that support for I-912 might be softening "One for the roads". Indeed, even though polls indicate that a commanding margin of voters wants to repeal the gas tax, we shouldn't fall into complacency. Those of us who support I-912 should keep working to get the message out.
On the other hand, today's op-ed by Seattle's fiscally incontient Mayor Greg Nickels, who opposes I-912, ironically will only help the I-912 campaign: In "Seattle shouldn't repeat its viaduct mistake". Yet again, Nickels boldly goes where he's been many times before, insisting on spending limitless amounts of money on every unnecessary transportation boondoggle imaginable. Voting YES on I-912 and repealing the gas tax is an effective way for voters to just say no to Nickels' fiscally irresponsible excess.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 24, 2005 02:31 PM | Email ThisI am voting for I-912 on principles noted above, but I also believe we need more money to do the building.
Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2005 03:07 PMThe mayor needs a new cell phone because he still can't hear us.
I don't hear a chorus of "can'ts" I hear and am saying don't sell me a half baked project with open ended funding.
Sell me a complete project, with construction schedules, deadlines, and cost breakdowns. Show me fiscal responsibility, accountability, then we will talk about it.
Till then "Hell No."
Posted by: JCM on August 24, 2005 03:27 PMNo wonder no one wants to run for mayor – who would aspire to be like Greg Nickels, a man of such small imagination and uninspired passion.
Posted by: newyorktransplant on August 24, 2005 03:38 PMAnd who is this "we" he is talking about? Is he referring to the city of Seattle or the state of Washington. The gas tax increase was statewide.
My city of Sammamish is already an exporter of gas tax funds. I see no reason to send him more.
Use the existing gas tax money to actually shorten my commute and then we'll talk about increasing it.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on August 24, 2005 03:41 PMIs it just me, or wouldn't a tunnel under sea level (I assume) flood if a large enough earthquake hit?
So, the viaduct pancakes, or the tunnel floods? Not much choice.
I must be missing something and hopefully it's not my sanity.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on August 24, 2005 04:13 PMThe case that there is a 'we' here could be advanced in as much as the viaduct benefits the State as a whole, however any obligation 'we' may have most certainly ends at the point that the utilitarian aspects are met and any enhancments that go beyond providing a safe and cater to the State's transportation NEEDS and are Seattle's responsibility. "We' have no responsibility to turn Seattle's waterfront into a park and any contribution to such should be strictly voluntary.
Posted by: JDH on August 24, 2005 05:47 PMCan't you see it now? A beaufitful utopia along the Bay, where we can run thru fields of flowers and lush grass singing songs of lore. Seattle the last great Commune.
Meanwhile they shut down more lanes...I-5 has been closed for new homeless studio's. Open air and TP for all.
Greg Nichols isn't even worth a red cent.
Posted by: Dengle on August 24, 2005 09:17 PMThere are all sorts of living creatures down below street level that will be killed. A tunnel could do irreparable harm to their eco-system.
Have they done an environmental audit of his plan? When the dirt is removed are they going to transplant it in a suitable below ground location so that the algae and bacteria living in it can survive and thrive?
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 25, 2005 12:47 AMThe mayor might take a lesson from one of the survivors of that era -- Amazon. As I understand it, one of their secrets was their frugality, as shown by the famous story of the
door desks.
(And the mayor should also take time to notice that Paul Allen has managed to lose money in almost every new business he has invested in.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on August 25, 2005 07:37 AMRead my finger.
Posted by: Shaun on August 25, 2005 09:39 AMMr Nickels want the entire state to pay for the new seawall that is need to support it as well as the rest of the water front.
He does not seem to get the fact that there is no solid plan for this project! Perhaps he should get his snoot out of the gin bottle long enough to look around and see facts that people are talking about.
What I have not heard is anyone raising the possiblity of funding the project via a toll road. Toll roads work very well in other parts of the country, why not here?
Posted by: Bud Kauffman on August 25, 2005 10:13 AM"WSDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and City of Seattle have selected the Tunnel Alternative to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct following three years of environmental and engineering review, 76 initial concepts, over 200 community meetings and over 4,500 public comments."
This Nickels' piece is just a song and dance around an already-made decision.
Posted by: C. Oh on August 25, 2005 01:06 PM