Morning Fizz
Evidently in Favor of Being Liable for Cost Overruns
1. The Stranger's
Slog had a cool find last night: In 1915, Seattle voters rejected a proposed City Council charter amendment that would have given the council power to override a mayoral veto of emergency legislation.
That might sound remote, but it's relevant today. The 2010 city council has been thinking about declaring an emergency to authorize the tunnel contract because citizen's aren't allowed to futz with emergency legislation. (Anti-tunnel Mayor Mike McGinn wants citizens to futz with the tunnel contract and voila—his former colleagues at the Sierra Club, along with Real Change, are doing his bidding. They're considering running a citizen initiative to make sure the tunnel contract protects Seattle property owners from footing the bill on any cost overruns. The council—evidently in favor of being liable for cost overruns???—doesn't want to do that.)
Fizz hears the battle over what the charter actually says about the council's power to declare emergencies—particularly whether or not they can do it over a mayoral veto—was the source of high drama all day yesterday with the council first getting the word from City Attorney Pete Holmes that, yes indeed, they did have the power to pass emergency legislation over a mayoral veto.
Fizz isn't too sure why council members would want to persue legislation that officially tells voters—who rejected the tunnel in 2007—that they no longer have any say over the tunnel (which the city is now intent on building).
But the council's override high didn't last long. McGinn's staff reportedly got on the phone with City Attorney Holmes and asked him if he'd actually done his homework.
First of all, the charter says:
And there was also the 1915 thing. Holmes reportedly got back on the phone with council and gave them the bad news.
That would explain why Fizz also heard that council tunnel stalwart Sally Bagshaw was backing off the emergency legislation ploy "for legal reasons" and not (even though this would make just as much sense) political ones.
2. Josh has asked the Fizz to re-run and editorial he wrote back in May. Seeing that the editorial has come true, the Fizz said yes.
From May 18th, 2010, "McGinn Outfoxes Council President Conlin":
3. And now a non-tunnel item:
Mayor Mike McGinn responded yesterday to PubliCola's questions about his nightlife initiative—which, as Erica noted yesterday, includes several provisions that aren't under the city's control, such as extending liquor service hours and adding late-night transit. We wanted to know: Had he talked to the liquor control board (which is responsible for rules setting liquor service hours) or King County Metro (which runs transit service in Seattle, and is facing cuts of hundreds of thousands of service hours in the next few years)?
On the first question, McGinn responded that his staff had talked to the liquor board briefly, and that "they have said they are open to the idea of different closing hours" but would need to study how it has worked in other cities. On the second, McGinn responded that he hadn't talked to Metro, acknowledged that "some things take longer than others," and noted that "transit is really challenged right now."
As for whether he'd prioritize adding late-night buses over preserving bus service during commute hours, McGinn said, "As we become more urban over time, we should provide more transit late at night," but added, "We're going to listen to the public before we reach a final" transit proposal.
That might sound remote, but it's relevant today. The 2010 city council has been thinking about declaring an emergency to authorize the tunnel contract because citizen's aren't allowed to futz with emergency legislation. (Anti-tunnel Mayor Mike McGinn wants citizens to futz with the tunnel contract and voila—his former colleagues at the Sierra Club, along with Real Change, are doing his bidding. They're considering running a citizen initiative to make sure the tunnel contract protects Seattle property owners from footing the bill on any cost overruns. The council—evidently in favor of being liable for cost overruns???—doesn't want to do that.)
Fizz hears the battle over what the charter actually says about the council's power to declare emergencies—particularly whether or not they can do it over a mayoral veto—was the source of high drama all day yesterday with the council first getting the word from City Attorney Pete Holmes that, yes indeed, they did have the power to pass emergency legislation over a mayoral veto.
Fizz isn't too sure why council members would want to persue legislation that officially tells voters—who rejected the tunnel in 2007—that they no longer have any say over the tunnel (which the city is now intent on building).
But the council's override high didn't last long. McGinn's staff reportedly got on the phone with City Attorney Holmes and asked him if he'd actually done his homework.
First of all, the charter says:
When an emergency exists in which it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, that an ordinance shall become effective without delay ...it shall not become an ordinance unless on its final passage by the City Council at least three-fourths (3/4) of all the members vote in its favor (the vote being taken by yeas and nays, and the names of those voting for and against being entered in the journal), and it shall have been approved by the Mayor whereupon it shall be of full force and effect.
And there was also the 1915 thing. Holmes reportedly got back on the phone with council and gave them the bad news.
That would explain why Fizz also heard that council tunnel stalwart Sally Bagshaw was backing off the emergency legislation ploy "for legal reasons" and not (even though this would make just as much sense) political ones.
2. Josh has asked the Fizz to re-run and editorial he wrote back in May. Seeing that the editorial has come true, the Fizz said yes.
From May 18th, 2010, "McGinn Outfoxes Council President Conlin":
City Council President Richard Conlin is getting politically sloppy.
On his blog “Making it Work,” he played right into Mayor Mike McGinn’s hands today, publishing a blog post that puts Conlin in the indefensible position of basically being in favor of cost overruns on the Alaskan Way deep-bore tunnel:
"While no one can promise that cost overruns will not occur, they are not ‘inevitable’ as Mayor McGinn has repeatedly suggested."
Conlin’s palpable frustration with McGinn over “delay” is understandable and is bound to fire up a bloc of voters in the city who want to build the tunnel, but he’s letting his emotion get the best of him, taking McGinn’s bait, and setting himself up for a major embarrassment by downplaying the possibility of cost overruns.
And frankly, his argument that delay is the biggest driver of cost overruns (it’s wild that a famous obstructionist like Conlin is playing the ditherer card on McGinn) is completely off point.
Conlin concludes: “If Mayor McGinn is truly concerned about cost overruns—and not just cynically using fear to try to derail the project – he ought to publicly announce that he will do everything in his power to keep the project moving.”
It’s a false choice. It’s like telling a Democrat to vote for a Republican in the 2010 primary because a Republican is going to win in November anyway, and so better to support the Republican you want.
McGinn is against the tunnel on principle because he thinks it’s reckless to build a freeway as we face a global climate crisis that’s caused by CO2 emissions. McGinn’s argument against it: This reckless project is also unfair to Seattle taxpayers.
I like his hand—principled stance, budget watchdogging—much better than Conlin’s.
3. And now a non-tunnel item:
Mayor Mike McGinn responded yesterday to PubliCola's questions about his nightlife initiative—which, as Erica noted yesterday, includes several provisions that aren't under the city's control, such as extending liquor service hours and adding late-night transit. We wanted to know: Had he talked to the liquor control board (which is responsible for rules setting liquor service hours) or King County Metro (which runs transit service in Seattle, and is facing cuts of hundreds of thousands of service hours in the next few years)?
On the first question, McGinn responded that his staff had talked to the liquor board briefly, and that "they have said they are open to the idea of different closing hours" but would need to study how it has worked in other cities. On the second, McGinn responded that he hadn't talked to Metro, acknowledged that "some things take longer than others," and noted that "transit is really challenged right now."
As for whether he'd prioritize adding late-night buses over preserving bus service during commute hours, McGinn said, "As we become more urban over time, we should provide more transit late at night," but added, "We're going to listen to the public before we reach a final" transit proposal.
