On the heels of Christine Gregoire's abdication of decision making authority over the replacement of part of a state highway, the Seattle Times and Everett Herald applaud her choice. Those that think elected officials are supposed to make decisions and lead should be nauseated.
Perhaps it is a symbol of the intractableness of the debate over replacing the viaduct, but people on both sides of the aisle seem mightily annoyed by this turn of events. Stefan is none to impressed, as linked above. This author thinks Gregoire's non-decision decision is horrendous. Meanwhile, Josh Feit over at the Stranger reports here, here, and here on the matter. In short, he thinks the announced vote stinks. In order of posts he notes the proposed vote is a false choice (since Gregoire herself acknowledges the tunnel isn't viable fiscally), Gregoire didn't study the 3rd option of the surface boulevard with transit (only the surface boulevard with no transit upgrades), and lots of prominent Seattle politicians disagree. The darn thing is Feit is right.
The Times and the Herald call Gregoire's punt to the voters "pragmatic" and "sensible." No, it's lame. What is the sense of asking people what option of two they want when the third option prominent local officials would like on the table hasn't been properly examined (it's not like there hasn't been time to do such things)? What is the sense of asking voters what they think if there are no taxes attached as needed to pay for the tunnel option? What is the sense of asking voters in Seattle whether they want the viaduct or tunnel, when financing for the tunnel would likely end up on a ballot for a much larger populace through the RTID?
Our local fascination with taking the voters' temperature is mind-numbingly stupid. The debate about replacing the viaduct is a complex series of interconnected policy decisions. We elect officials to make such judgments. If we don't like those decisions, we throw them out of office. Our own recent history in the state is voters limiting taxes on car tabs and property, while voting for unfunded spending on lower class sizes and teachers' salaries. Argue about the merits of each of those individual choices all you want, but taken as a package they don't represent a logical collection of policies in the least. Now the Governor wants Seattle to cast a vote that deliberately avoids passing judgment on a number of essential aspects of the viaduct replacement debate?
This is leadership? I think not.
Mercifully, at least one member of the local mainstream media agrees: Danny Westneat. His Sunday column gives the Governor's decision its due derision, in politer terms appropriate for a family newspaper. And in a nutshell he captures the problem:
If that's true, then what are the politicians for? Isn't this the very job we hired them to do -- to break political logjams? To give here and get there, to bend some arms and scratch some backs and somehow come up with something? Anything?Instead, they want us to do it. So they don't have to.
We barely have a representative democracy anymore. The representative part has checked out. The democracy part may look like it's in full swing -- there's certainly a lot of voting going on -- but it isn't leading anywhere.
Westneat has the courage to pierce through the fluff to which the Times and Herald have otherwise succumbed. We live in a region where consensus is valued, where the opinions of others are to be embraced and explored. That's nice. But in government, on tough problems, sooner or latter you're just supposed to make up your damn mind. Asking voters to do that for you that isn't exactly a noble way to earn your pay.
****
UPDATE: As I finalized this post, Joel Connelly's column on the matter has come online. He's not impressed either. Meanwhile, the P-I's editorial board adds what appears to be just a whole lot of mush on the subject.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 17, 2006 11:40 PM | Email ThisBut, the right people won't be voting on this. Sure, the Seattleites will be expected to pay in excess of what the State would have paid, but, ....what happens when the costs for the tunnel double or triple over what the voters were told? Don't you think the State (yes, that means me) will bail the City out? Oh, I know, all those promises and legalese written into the documents to prevent that from happening. Do you really think the State won't bail Seattle out?
Posted by: swatter on December 18, 2006 04:57 AMState government must intervene
A decade ago, Seattle voters made what was called a visionary decision, and voted to replace the aging and dangerous viaduct with a tunnel. The tunnel was touted by then-mayor Greg Nickels as a way of "reconnecting" Seattle with its waterfront, and promised to be boon to the waterfront and the entire downtown core.
But now, in the face of multi-billion dollar cost overruns, the taxpayers of Seattle have balked at the latest proprosed tax increase to finish the viaduct. The money to finish it, and finished it must be, simply does not exist within the relatively small Seattle tax base.
The viaduct is part of the state highway, and because of that it is ultimately a state responsibility. Olympia now has no choice but to provide the funds to finish the problem-plagued tunnel. Will the rest of the state's projects suffer? Of course. But there is simply no other choice.
Posted by: ThreeDimen on December 18, 2006 07:23 AMHow they continue to look themselves straight in the face every morning baffles me. At least Nickels is behind transgendered jail inmates getting their own potties (today's front page Times)--that's a start.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 18, 2006 07:32 AMThe local government hacks around here not only don't add value, they've shown nothing but ineptitude on transportation projects.
520 and 99 are state highways. The legislature should establish tolls and taxes to pay for those, and get going on them.
Eyman's notion that the public has to vote on tax increases (at least as far as transportation megaprojects is concerned) was at best misguided. Look at monorail, look at ST. Those who make money off megaprojects draft the measures that go on the ballot - that's a guaranteed formula for taking advantage of taxpayers.
The state government alone should have complete authority over these two projects. Less bureaucracy and less layers of government. More accountability, and those in charge are elected (not like with ST and RTID). The local government clowns entrenched here just would gum up the works paying back their political benefactors.
The open bias being displayed is stunning sometimes.
Posted by: jimg on December 18, 2006 08:49 AM1) There's a project to be used by the entire region, and probably paid for by the whole state, but ONLY Seattle will vote on it.
2) In all likelihood, a surface option would be most popular in Seattle (because it's anti-car) and outside the Puget Sound (because it's cheapest). Yet, this is not a choice on the ballot.
3) After months of hand-wringing by all parties that the most important aspect of the project was to get started RIGHT AWAY, our fearless leader has decided to kick this down the road for another year, allowing construction inflation to eat even more into the project's affordability.
How does this make sense?
Posted by: Martin on December 18, 2006 09:14 AMVery good point, jimg. And in that case the Republicans were asking voters statewide, not in one city, to approve a transportation financing package written and passed by the Legislature.
The double standard is, indeed, stunning.
The reason I think this is because both the Mayor and the Seattle City Council have threatened to slow-roll and oppose any option other than a tunnel.
The city council decided not to bring the issue to a vote of the people when the price tag for the tunnel option skyrocketed way past the price tag for replacing the viaduct. They were right, as polls have shown.
Normally politicians are supposed to represent the people. They've chosen to ignore the people, so it's only right that the people are given the choice once again.
Posted by: Perri Nelson on December 18, 2006 01:09 PMThat knife in the back must hurt!
Posted by: Jack Burton on December 18, 2006 02:29 PMI don't have any problem with allowing the voters of Seattle to decide which option they want, assuming of course, THEY are the ones paying the additional cost over the rebuild option.
What 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.
But Gregoire says she changed her mind after taking a recent field trip with Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to inspect the quake-damaged viaduct and aging 520 bridge. Experts say both are at risk of failing.
"I did not know how bad it was," said Gregoire. "If people die and I could have done more, I couldn't live with that."
If the viaduct falls down and kills someone the deceased's lawyers will love that quote.
Posted by: rob on December 18, 2006 06:26 PMAnd, I actually agree with you that including the tunnel in the RTID package would likely kill it. Moreover, since the vote Gregoire is asking Seattle to take doesn't require corresponding taxes it sets up a false choice where Seattle voters could approve the tunnel then have the RTID (with everything else that would benefit the region) go down because no one wants to pay for the next Big Dig.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 18, 2006 07:19 PMEveryone familiar enough with Seattle politics knows they will talk an issue to death before coming to a decision. Leaders make decisions, and they do it decisively. If she was going to punt this back to the voters, my biggest criticism is that it was not done a year ago. Instead, we hear about how she will make a decision on the viaduct, and then we don't get one.
I will be very surprised if they can get a viaduct option ballot done in the spring, and a funding mechanism completed by the fall (if the tunnel option is chosen). But the more likely scenario is that Seattle chooses the sensible rebuild option and the RTID is on the fall ballot with some additional money on it for the cost overruns that are already occuring for the rebuild. If the vote for the rebuild is overwhelming, Nickels and the council will have little choice but to scrap their zoning threats.
Posted by: Palouse on December 19, 2006 08:18 AM