January 30, 2007
Viaduct ballot measures challenged

Former Monorail advocate Peter Sherwin has filed suit to challenge the wording of the Viaduct advisory ballot measures.

It's the second measure that upsets Sherwin, who supports retrofitting, rather than replacing, the viaduct.

"I don't think this is an honest portrayal," said Sherwin, who ran four campaigns to build a new monorail from Ballard to West Seattle, a project that never got built. "It doesn't show that the state has not approved of 'tunnel lite' nor given any funding to it."

Sherwin is on the right side of history this time.

Meanwhile, mail ballot afficionado Bob Ferguson is now "worried" about forcing 133,000 Seattle poll voters to vote by mail on the Viaduct questions.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 30, 2007 12:20 PM | Email This
1. Whoops, I guess I'll have to rethink my support of the retrofit now that Sherwin is also in favor of it.

Posted by: swatter on January 30, 2007 12:08 PM
2. If we had introduced all-mail balloting in 2004, Dino Rossi would be Governor today. There were about 30,000 valid provisional ballots counted in King County. These provisional ballots were turned in AT POLLING PLACES. The most common reason for casting a provisional ballot was either that the voter had moved, or that a new voter registration had not been processed in time to be on the poll books. These same people would also not have received a mail ballot for the same reasons, had all-mail balloting been in place. And without polling places to go to, relatively few of these 30,000 provisional voters would have made the hike to King County Elections downtown to cast a ballot. Had provisional voting in 2004 been suppressed by even 5% by eliminating polling places, then Dino Rossi would be Governor today. In reality, provisional voting will probably be suppressed by over 50% by no longer being able to do this at local polling places.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 12:23 PM
3. 2. Richard Pope.

Ok pope, I've read much of your stuff, but this has me going. We do little checking on ballots ( who can & who can't vote) Please explain to me how in the heck you can think that a mail-in would work any better. For what most of us have seen this will let eveyone vote with NO checking. Sorry but not buying this one.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2007 12:55 PM
4. I didn't say that mail-in voting would work any BETTER. I merely said all-mail voting would SUPPRESS legitimate voting -- by discouraging legitimate provisional voting. On November 2, 2004, approximately 30,000 valid provisional ballots were cast in King County, by eligible voters, who went to a polling place. If we had all-mail voting, there would be no polling places, and people would have to travel to King County Elections in downtown Seattle to cast a provisional ballot. If folks had to do that on November 2, 2004 (i.e. go all the way downtown, instead of to a nearby polling place), there would have been a helluva lot less provisional ballots cast in King County, and Dino Rossi would be Governor.

Posted by: Richard Pope on January 30, 2007 01:50 PM
5. All mail-in ballot voting? Sure, great thing,
just look here and here.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 30, 2007 03:01 PM
6. So why, if I may ask, is a STATE HIGHWAY, funded by the WHOLE STATE AND EVERY CITIZEN HERE, being voted on by SEATTLE ONLY.


Posted by: GS on January 30, 2007 03:04 PM
7. There are many flaws with this election, but let me mention only one: Why are there only two options, and why these two?

Why not build a tunnel for the trains instead of the cars?

Why not have a surface street option? Especially one that improves the Mercer Street corridor so cars can get from SR99 to I5, and increases the capacity of I5? i.e. blow up the Convention Center if necessary.

Why not a half viaduct (surface south bound, elevated northbound)?

Why not continue to repair/retrofit the current viaduct?

Why not build a single lane conveyer belt that you drive onto/off of?


Posted by: Seabecker on January 30, 2007 03:56 PM
8. GS, the "state part" is pretty much already set. The state isn't willing to go above the cost of an above-ground replacement. If Seattle wants a gold-plated version, the state said "Well, you can pay the extra!" This vote is basically to see if Seattlites are remotely willing to pay for the gold-plating. I'm not.

Posted by: Al on January 30, 2007 05:03 PM
9. The vote is stupid. Peter is simply adding on to the stupidity.

Look, under any condition this is pretty simpe: Seattle and the state need to agree on what to do about the Viaduct. Both have a stake
in it.

This fact applies to every city in the state and its relationship with the state on a highway that needs changing or replacing. All 180 something of them.

Failure to agree drives up costs. Someone should sit the primary combatants (Nickels, the Seattle City Council and Frank Chopp) in a cold room with no food and not let them out until they've worked it out.

Peter would have a problem with that too.

Posted by: thor on January 30, 2007 06:18 PM
10. Thor,
Sherwin has done a fine and noble thing and I can't believe the carping I hear.

As to your sugggestion that the disagreements on the Viaduct are just a matter of communication, maybe we should get Stefan Sharkansky and David Goldstein into a room and tell them that they must agree. It just doesn't work like that. Sometimes people just see things differently and they will never agree.

Posted by: David Sucher on January 30, 2007 09:14 PM
11. So why can't I get to vote on this issue? I'm in unincorporated KC; the Port of Seattle will be funding this thing as well and they have taxing rights over me without my say.

Posted by: Doug on January 31, 2007 10:48 AM
12. Actually it is far from certain -- it would be NO as of today in fact --that the Port would make any contribution at all.

Posted by: David Sucher on January 31, 2007 12:41 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?