[This was originally posted over the weekend, so we're moving it up.]

The Seattle City Council has been openly critical of Mayor Mike McGinn's surprise $241 million seawall bond proposal. Council President Richard Conlin says it's unlikely the council will send McGinn's proposed measure to the public.

I think McGinn will win this standoff, and I'll explain why. But first—the council's objections and McGinn's trick shot.

The Council's Objections

For starters, the council was blindsided by the proposal. Second, another money measure could jeopardize other tax asks—like the education levy or a Seattle Center levy.

Also, a bond needs 60 percent approval. Bonds are less expensive per year—longer payback period—than levies, but 60 percent (as opposed to the 50 plus 1 needed to pass a levy) is daunting.

The council also questions slating the seawall measure for a special, expensive ($1 million) May election.

In short: Why have a risky and expensive special election—that could jeopardize other city measures—when the seawall project is already planned as part of the tunnel project? (It's not technically part of the $4.2 tunnel billion plan, but the city has agreed to pay for about $900 million in related projects, including about $250 million to fix the deteriorating seawall by 2016. McGinn wants to get it done by 2014.)

McGinn's Trick Shot

And really, the council is questioning Mayor McGinn's motives. Is this some sort of pool-table trick shot (3 ball off the 6 ball into the corner pocket) to undermine the $4.2 billion tunnel project that McGinn adamantly opposes?

For example, as Council Member Sally Bagshaw told Erica: “If it’s really an emergency … then it shouldn’t be subjected to a public vote. If it’s a critical need, we should do it. We don’t say to the public, ‘This is an emergency, do you want us to fix the dike?’”

They wonder what the mayor is up to?

Mayor McGinn wrote an editorial in the Seattle Times on Saturday where he lays out his case for getting to work on the seawall now—"it would be irresponsible not to immediately address this basic issue of public safety."

He also says he isn't "up to something" re: killing tunnel.

He writes:

"The undercurrent in many of the questions seems to be a suspicion that I'm "up to something," or that this seawall discussion really is a veiled discussion about the waterfront-tunnel proposal. Let me state clearly: No.

As I said last week, the seawall isn't related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement except as it relates to safety. Rather than tying these issues together, my intention is to separate them."

Hilarious, Mayor McGinn.

That's exactly the conspiracy theory: That you want to separate the issue of the seawall from the tunnel. By separating the issues (currently they're connected in the public's mind), the paramount safety issue of the deteriorating seawall will no longer be a de facto argument for forging ahead with the tunnel project.

And that's why Council Member Bagshaw's question—why a vote?—is on point. Having a vote fits right into the anti-tunnel conspiracy. Having the public on record for the seawall fix further distinguishes the seawall from the tunnel—the sea wall becomes a sanctioned priority as opposed to the $4.2 billion tunnel, which lost a public vote in 2007, 70 to 30. In short, separating the issues plays right into McGinn's agenda of killing the tunnel.

Why McGinn Will Win

We've been down on Mayor McGinn here at PubliCola lately—and rightfully so. Taking his oblique style of governance to comic levels, he recently refused to answer some of our basic reporting questions about his staffing plans, and then turned around and attacked us on Facebook, incorrectly accusing us of getting the story wrong. Classy.

But I will say this for McGinn: The council will lose this fight over the seawall. McGinn is a sharp fellow, and once again, his read on the politics of all-things-tunnel is keener than anyone's. By framing this as a basic safety issue he is backing the council into a corner. Are they really going to vote 'No' on "this basic issue of public safety?" I don't think so.

McGinn has yet to be wrong about where the public's at—think 2007's viaduct vote, 2007's roads and transit vote, 2008's  parks levy, and, of course, last year's mayoral election. The public is with him on this "public safety" issue, and he knows it.

The council will figure it out soon enough.