It's the biggest issue in her inbox and Mrs. Gregoire has decided not to make a decision: "Gregoire calls for voters to decide future of viaduct"
The future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct appeared as murky as ever Friday, despite [Mrs.] Gregoire's long-awaited decision on the project.I don't get it. The Mrs. acknowledges that the tunnel is not financially viable. Polls show that few voters prefer the tunnel. So why incur the delay and risk of a vote? And why a Seattle-only vote? The viaduct is a state highway, and the whole state will suffer the tunnel's inevitable delays and overruns.Gregoire called for a public vote in Seattle to break the political stalemate over whether to build an affordable elevated structure or a tunnel that she considers to be financially shaky.
But the upshot (and I say this sadly as a life-long Democrat) is that she has weakened the Party by demonstrating that Democrats can't manage even simple issues. (And the Viaduct is NOT a complex problem.)
She could for example have said something like "I choose the Rebuild but if the City of Seattle can demonstrate in the next 90 days the firm ability to fund the Tunnel..."
In that way she would have demonstrated some leadership (though at the end of the day the Rebuild will not a viable solution) and yet given the Mayor/Counci one last chance.
She has satisfied no one, guaranteed months of civic strife and made herself look weak and indecisive. Thanks, Chris. It will be nop surprise to me if you lose.
Posted by: David Sucher on December 16, 2006 10:45 AMYes, the viaduct's a State Highway. And the State has pretty clearly declared that it might come up with funds to repair it, but will NOT come up with the vast additional monies required to build our overfed Mayor's dream of a boutique waterfront development with a tunnel under it.
Such an additional slush fund should properly come from City residents, since it's the Mayor's ego (and the local businesses owning properties along the route) which would be most gratified by this urban planner's wet dream.
Of course, we'd be subject to months of incessant propaganda from all the interested parties, full of specious cost estimates, with black and white 'before' photos and glossy color 'after' renderings full of smiling citizens. All based of course on the merest cynical parody of an actual development plan.
Still, even the lowest cost estimates of this architectural masterpiece (sure to be exceeded in shameless 'Big Dig' style) will be enough to wake up enough taxpaying Seattle residents that an assenting vote to the egomanic concept is far from a sure thing. And since Greg Nickles didn't disclose this hog when he ran for office, he can just give the electorate a voice in the grabbing and spending of their hard-earned capital.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on December 16, 2006 11:54 AMWhat a hypocrite. You chastise the Governor for suggesting the people should vote...yet you advocate voting for everything that has to do with taxes.
Your "throw the bums out when they spend" taxes message is the reason we're so backwards in education and transportation.
But...what choice do you leave the leglislators? They can only do what's right and get you, Eyman, etc. to work hard to undo it...or get thrown out of office. You and Eyman will force whatever decision is made to be voted on (and in your case hopefully down).
Look in the mirror Stefan. You and your supporters are the cause for the problems.
Posted by: Bill Melater on December 16, 2006 01:40 PMThe problem with this state is that there is no backbone in the legislative process. Voters elect the same dumb people to the State House and expect a different result. Then when they do dumb stuff, people put initiatives together to overrule the legislature...and it starts all over again.
Making parks for Seattle isn't one of them; state roads to support interstate commerce is!
If they reread the State Constitution, they could get rid of the Arts Commission and save us a few million a year.
It would be different if we were actually getting the amount of government we are paying for, but this state is a joke when it comes to accountability. Performance audits are conducted by the Governor's Staff....the State Auditor. I don't care that he's elected....like that makes a difference once he/she is in office?
A. Bechtel **
B. Aggregate Industries, Inc **
C. Parsons Brinckerhoff **
D. Local contractors, property developers and unions who buy meals for Nickels
E. All of the above
** Boston "Big Dig contractor/supplier now under scrutiny
Also can't wait to see which special interest group is the first to put together an ad campaign depicting a school bus being squashed under a collapsing viaduct with firefighters telling us how to vote. Hey, it's for the kids!
Posted by: Tyler Durden on December 16, 2006 03:09 PMAfter all, put an initiative they don't like on the ballot, and they lose their collective minds. I guess it's different when the moron if Gregoire instead of Eyman, eh?
What reeking, leftist hypocrisy.
Posted by: Hinton on December 16, 2006 04:51 PMWhen an unwashed citizen collects enough signatures on a petition to emplace a ballot issue, that's an 'initiative'. When the other unwashed citizens vote in a majority for it, that's when the Seattle Times and P-I launch a continuous demonization of the First Unwashed who launched the petition - instead of the Majority Unwashed who elected its proposal.
However, when one of the governing nobility punts a ballot issue back to the unwashed citizens, that's a 'referendum'. By the cynical rules of State politics, the citizens will be given a choice of 'packages' worthy of Costco (where the quantities in the packages are far enough in excess of an individual family's needs that common sense says don't buy, but the unit price is low enough that the family must devote half its floor space to warehousing the surplus from their great deal).
That's why you never see a straight vote for roads vs light rail - the unwashed might vote wrong, so we get these horrible 'packages' with pork for all the hidden agencies. It's unlikely we'll get a straight vote for a new viaduct vs the tunnel, either.
The advantage of a 'referendum' is that when it loses, then the Times and P-I immediately demonize talk radio and the blogs and Tim Eyman - NOT the elites that framed the referendum to start with.
Sorta related to the EU Constitution - citizens are allowed to vote time and again until it finally gets a majority, then never no votes no more.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on December 16, 2006 05:27 PM
Such courage!
Posted by: deadwood on December 16, 2006 09:01 PMPlease define "should". Are you saying the constitution limits what they can spend on, or just that that's your personal preference? If the former, where exactly does it say that (I can't find it)? If the latter, do you have any evidence that that's the will of the voters?
Posted by: Bruce on December 16, 2006 09:09 PMThe Tobacco company attack was mostly just finding a willing dupe with AG qualifications to attack big business. It didn't take anyone special, as proven by who lead the attack. And, it doesn't get any more spineless than this anti-decision from Gregoire. In addition to being cowardly, it's also dangerous because Seattleites are shown to be stupid enough to willingly vote for a Mass Transit fiascos like the Monorail to nowhere. So there's a good chance that spineless indecisive left-leaning Seattle voters do equal financial damage to Seattle while they ape Gregoire's own recreant antics.
The positive note is that since retrofit and other more fiscally sane options are now on the table, Gregoire is realizing that money does not actually grow on trees, and instead it is stolen from the voters through taxes. This is the beginning of a craven walk-back / re-election bid that will still end in Gregoire's defeat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 16, 2006 09:41 PMOf course, by doing this on a day no one would be able to pay attention, she was able to somewhat dodge the issue of her dodging the issue.
The "Seattle Way" at it's finest. [/sarcasm]
Posted by: Mike H on December 16, 2006 10:01 PMWhy the hostility towards firemen? What have we done, other than our job, for the citizens?
Posted by: Union Fireman on December 17, 2006 03:23 AMAnd, did anyone else read between the lines? When they got done with the repair estimate, it was fairly close to the estimates to replace, so the electeds decided that new is better than repair.
But, the big question I have is the estimate itself. The repair estimate done by the State consultant (which is also expected to make 100s of millions on the design and construction contract for the replacement) were in a whole lot of detail, while the generic estimate to replace is still 'pie-in-the sky' estimate. In other words, the books were cooked to favor the replacement option. In other words, the replacement option should go through the same thorough analysis the repair option went through and costs should be compared.
The cost to repair is still, IMHO, is about 1/2 the cost of replacement. Forget about the tunnel.
Foolish, foolish people!! Do these people lose their brains once they get elected?
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2006 06:51 AMAnd to screw over the surface-transit option.
And to make me hate the damn witch.
Posted by: john on December 17, 2006 07:36 AMand why not 8 lanes on 520?
Posted by: righton on December 17, 2006 07:40 AMAnyone for baseball?? - boy - just gotta love it
Posted by: Bill on December 17, 2006 09:24 AMWe voted for $30 car tabs
We voted against the Stadium madness
Have they ever stooped to listen to the voters?
Nooooooooooooooooo
why is this time so magical?
hot potato. dont want the blame & risks. no reform in DSHS, freebies for illegal aliens, crushing taxes, union pandering. excuses. excuses.
leadership? a concept for diversity captains assigned to every company and govt office. what a shame. nice state. potential. but lackey management.
leaders take risks and potential falls. gimmies to illegals and unions pose no risks. answering to the taxpayer is scary.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 17, 2006 09:31 AMIt's not the firemen themselves, Union Fireman. It's your leadership and which political party you (they) consistently support. You're no different than the State Labor Council, AFSCME, SEIU, WSFE and all the other corrupt unions supported by Ivan and his ilk.
Posted by: jimg on December 17, 2006 09:44 AMShe is a coward who cannot lead because she prefers the cover of political expediency.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on December 17, 2006 10:17 AMThe tunnel advocates are rich, and will pump $$$$ into the campaign. Who will pump money into a "leave the money in the taxpayers' pockets" campaign? Exactly nobody. So the tunnel option could get a bare majority in Seattle. That then means the million+ taxpayers in the RTID district outside Seattle would be on the hook for additional (neverending) taxes. Campaign spending only has to work on influencing Seattle voters, and far more than that get impaled on the taxes. Great scheme for local government leaders and their base . . . .
Posted by: KLM on December 17, 2006 10:49 AMI'm not sure why you are so confused. This one was an easy call for Gregoire: she got to give Da Mayor what he and his social engineering cronies wanted by taking this out of the State's hands and putting into car-hating Seattle voters' hands. She gets to pay for Nickel's boondoggle, but is completely absolved of any responsibility for it because "the people voted for it."
I would think that a state highway vote would have to be voted on state-wide under the constitution, though. I'm sure that will be part of the grounds for appeal after the Seattle moonbats vote for a gajillion dollars worth of tunnel based on the idea that "the people" will somehow benefit when in reality it will be the condo developers....
Posted by: Marc on December 17, 2006 11:36 PMIf viaduct and tunnel are the only choices, I advocate boycotting the voting. Black any and all circles on the ballot.
Posted by: JB on December 18, 2006 02:42 AMSo really, one cannot really blame her for punting, only despise her.
Posted by: Frank Black on December 18, 2006 08:28 AMWhat I do have a problem with is that for the last year or so, we've been hearing how our illustrious governor is going to decide which option will go forward, and now instead of deciding she puts it back to a vote. If she wanted this vote then fine, but why couldn't that have been decided right after the new taxes were upheld?
Now, we have to wait another year or whatever until another vote is put out after wrangling over what options are on the ballot and the wording. Nevermind that this project was sold to the voters as an emergency and it was a matter of "life and death" that we pass these new taxes. So much for that.
Posted by: Palouse on December 18, 2006 11:17 AM