The voters of Seattle have spoken, now it's time for the politicians, especially in Olympia, to respond. The answer is likely to be a rush to study the surface plus transit option waiting in the wings of the advisory ballot game of patty-cake, replete with assorted combinations of yes's and no's.
I respectfully disagree with Stefan's thoughts below. Danny Westneat seems closer to the mark:
More than two-thirds of the city said "no." In election-speak, that means "we don't want to hear another word about this tunnel ever again."The vote was closer on a new elevated freeway. But not close enough. Tuesday night a new viaduct was losing by 11 percentage points -- which in American politics verges on a landslide.
Eleven points is a decisive margin, while the combination of no to both options does indeed indicate a voting populace expressing disdain in general. That would be disdain with the choices presented to them and disdain for the politicians who gave them those choices; politicians who have indeed been "behaving like toddlers."
Whatever analysis is applied to the results, one can expect the Seattle City Council and legislators from the area to be in a veritable race to formalize further study of the surface plus transit solution. As Westneat also mentions, that option is virtually every officials' second choice. Plus, many of the "thousand little things" that should accompany the surface plus transit option need to be done anyway during whatever construction would occur for an elevated rebuild.
Either way, it's no mystery expanded transit is preferred by Seattle officials, and their hand just got stronger:
But under every scenario for the state's post-election action plan, Seattle will get a big infusion of new transit options. That's more buses to mitigate standstill traffic during construction or to be used as a permanent alternative if the city successfully blocks the elevated viaduct.
Like it or not, the surface option just got a lot more appealing to the powers that be.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 13, 2007 11:58 PM | Email ThisThere will a ton of small and medium size businesses from Seattle moving there in response to this transit push.
Like it or not, people who are in many of the services industries and sales focused businesses need cars.
Posted by: johnny on March 14, 2007 12:05 AMWhat percentage of voters do you seriously believe voted No-No? Give us your best estimate. 40%? 50%? 55%? And how many do you think voted YES-YES? 1%? 10%? 25%?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 14, 2007 01:54 AMThank god I don't live in that wacky city.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 14, 2007 06:49 AMI heard the voters say they wanted a retrofit. Didn't you?
So what we have is an advisory vote that means something only to those that don't want the tunnel. The vote only killed the tunnel option.
Now, will there be pressure on Seattle to issue permits for the new viaduct or is the margin of "no" votes enough for the politicos to do the retrofit like I predicted? I am glad the elevated viaduct vote got smashed so resoundingly.
And not bad for turnout either- 98k of 341k voters for a little over 30% turnout.
Posted by: swatter on March 14, 2007 07:02 AMI have no idea and won't venture a guess since voter behavior can be an odd duck. Regrettably, the construct you're looking for, which is interesting, is tough to figure out the way the ballot was designed.
A better design for the kind of comprehensive information you're looking for would have allowed people to cast a vote indicating 1st choices, 2nd choices, and choices they were totally opposed to. Though it's not like I'd expect a ballot designed by the Seattle City Council and administered by King County Elections to handle that well.
Either way, it's more evidence the "advisory" ballot wasn't a very prudent use of anyone's time.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 14, 2007 07:37 AMAt some point in time, perhaps Seattle will wake up and realize that they are not the center of the universe... (ok, never mind, what was I thinking...)
Posted by: Paul O' The East on March 14, 2007 07:53 AMThe plan is becoming obvious.
Obfuscate
Prevaricate
Raise taxes
In the meantime, does anyone know if the troops from Seattle now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan received their absentee ballots in time?
Posted by: Diogenes on March 14, 2007 08:36 AMFirst, they voted their advisory opinion against spending billions for replacing the current viaduct with a new viaduct. The majority of voters were not persuaded that the cost and disruption were worth it.
Second, they voted their advisory opinion against spending billions for replacing the current viaduct with a tunnel (so-called "hybrid tunnel"). The majority of voters were not persuaded that the cost and disruption were worth it.
I voted no on both, primarily for reasons of fiscal responsibility, but also because I favor a retrofit as the most cost effective reasonable alternative. Others may disagree with me, but nevertheless that's why I voted no, and that's why many people voted no.
I am opposed to spending billions on any proposal that will worsen, rather than improve, our transportation problems - especially when there is a viable alternative (retrofit) that does not cost billions, does not involve the massive disruption replacement of the viaduct would cause.
I realize that on the other side of the spectrum there are those in Seattle who voted no-no for opposite reasons. Yes, they want to tear down the viaduct. Yes, they are in favor of the disruption that it would cause. Yes, they are willing to raise billions in taxes to pay for the replacement and disruption. But they opposed replacing the current viaduct with any other "pro-automobile" alternative such as a tunnel or new viaduct.
While the anti-automobile faction will try to spin this vote as meaning Seattle voters favor tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with some anti-automobile project, there is no evidence at all to suggest the people of Seattle favor tearing down the viaduct in the first place.
If we retrofit, we don't have to replace it. If we retrofit, we avoid disruption and big tax increases.
You may agree or disagree with a retrofit, and you may agree or disagree with those who don't want to "replace" the viaduct. But there is no reason to disregard that point of view, or to assume that yesterday's vote means the people of Seattle "want" to tear down and replace the viaduct.
Two replacements were offered; both were rejected. To conclude that the people want to tear down and replace the viaduct is not logical.
Posted by: Steve Beren on March 14, 2007 09:20 AMYou are 100% correct to observe "it's more evidence the "advisory" ballot wasn't a very prudent use of anyone's time."
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 14, 2007 10:01 AMYou are totally wrong. A majority of the people favor one option or the other. I know many people pro-viaduct, anti-tunnel and many people pro-tunnel, anti-viaduct. A majority of Seattle want a replacement, they just can't agree with what. The surface street option was the biggest loser, if you look at the results.
Posted by: AP on March 14, 2007 12:02 PM