Opinion
I'm Asking Again: Pro-Tunnel. Anti-Cost Overruns. Anyone?
Since the tunnel issue is raging (watch for Mayor McGinn's consultant to come out with a report today that's even scarier than the 40-percent-possibility-for-cost-overruns that the council's consultant found).
And since we already republished one editorial today (from May) about how dense the council is being—I'm going to re-post another editorial (from earlier this week) that I'm feeling even more amped about this afternoon.
Basically, council leadership needs to drop its adamantly-pro-tunnel-whatever-with-cost-overruns position and go with an adamantly-pro-tunnel-adamantly-anti-cost-overruns position.
I call it the Joni Earl position (after the Sound Transit CEO), and it's the only thing that can save tunnel boosters from getting rope-a-doped by McGinn, who's basically got them defending a pro-cost overruns position (and an anti-public vote position!)
Advice to tunnel supporters: You need some credibility. Being honest about cost overruns and figuring out a plan to deal with them will work out much better than chasing McGinn around the ring.
Here's the editorial:
There are currently two nod-and-wink positions in the waterfront tunnel debate. There's Mayor Mike McGinn's "fear of cost overruns" position and city council president Richard Conlin's "Pollyanna" build-it position.
McGinn is really just plain against the idea of a tunnel, but he's relying on the oldest trick in the book, which is to heckle from the obstructionist NIMBY right about the potential for a financial fiasco. (McGinn is starting to remind me of anti-light rail guru Emory Bundy.) Conlin is flat-out for the tunnel, but he's in denial limbo about the potential for financial problems, which undermines the credibility of the project. (He's starting to remind me of, well, Richard Conlin.)
It'd be nice to have someone step up and be honest. Let's call it the "Joni Earl" position (named after the current Sound Transit executive director who took over when the project tanked 10 years ago—bringing it back from a $1 billion shortfall, overseeing the debut of the downtown-to-SeaTac line last year, and winning the vote to extend light rail. And Earl's light rail currently appears to be on-budget with its own tunnel boring projects.)
It's a position that could give the council the upper hand over McGinn, if they've got the nerve. The position is this: Adamantly pro-tunnel. Adamantly anti-cost overruns.
Tunnel supporters—I'm thinking of state Sen. Ed Murray or King County Executive Dow Constantine or former Mayor Greg Nickels or most of all, a Seattle city council member like Sally Bagshaw—should step up and alter this off-point pissing match—and say: "We're building this tunnel, and we're going to come up with a real financial plan."
That would frame an honest debate. McGinn would be forced to come out against the tunnel on the merits—i.e., it's bad for the environment (which it is)—and Conlin would be forced to stop giving the tunnel a bad name by making stuff up.
Given the lessons learned from light rail (and the monorail), it's weird that there isn't a politician on the pro-tunnel side who's willing to step into this role.
If the Seattle Six (the six Seattle-area state representatives who went along with Speaker Frank Chopp's amendment to put Seattle property owners on the hook for cost overruns) had taken this position back in 2009— instead of going along with the bum deal to get their tunnel—the city wouldn't be so divided right now.
Maybe some honest leaders would help.
And since we already republished one editorial today (from May) about how dense the council is being—I'm going to re-post another editorial (from earlier this week) that I'm feeling even more amped about this afternoon.
Basically, council leadership needs to drop its adamantly-pro-tunnel-whatever-with-cost-overruns position and go with an adamantly-pro-tunnel-adamantly-anti-cost-overruns position.
I call it the Joni Earl position (after the Sound Transit CEO), and it's the only thing that can save tunnel boosters from getting rope-a-doped by McGinn, who's basically got them defending a pro-cost overruns position (and an anti-public vote position!)
Advice to tunnel supporters: You need some credibility. Being honest about cost overruns and figuring out a plan to deal with them will work out much better than chasing McGinn around the ring.
Here's the editorial:
There are currently two nod-and-wink positions in the waterfront tunnel debate. There's Mayor Mike McGinn's "fear of cost overruns" position and city council president Richard Conlin's "Pollyanna" build-it position.
McGinn is really just plain against the idea of a tunnel, but he's relying on the oldest trick in the book, which is to heckle from the obstructionist NIMBY right about the potential for a financial fiasco. (McGinn is starting to remind me of anti-light rail guru Emory Bundy.) Conlin is flat-out for the tunnel, but he's in denial limbo about the potential for financial problems, which undermines the credibility of the project. (He's starting to remind me of, well, Richard Conlin.)
It'd be nice to have someone step up and be honest. Let's call it the "Joni Earl" position (named after the current Sound Transit executive director who took over when the project tanked 10 years ago—bringing it back from a $1 billion shortfall, overseeing the debut of the downtown-to-SeaTac line last year, and winning the vote to extend light rail. And Earl's light rail currently appears to be on-budget with its own tunnel boring projects.)
It's a position that could give the council the upper hand over McGinn, if they've got the nerve. The position is this: Adamantly pro-tunnel. Adamantly anti-cost overruns.
Tunnel supporters—I'm thinking of state Sen. Ed Murray or King County Executive Dow Constantine or former Mayor Greg Nickels or most of all, a Seattle city council member like Sally Bagshaw—should step up and alter this off-point pissing match—and say: "We're building this tunnel, and we're going to come up with a real financial plan."
That would frame an honest debate. McGinn would be forced to come out against the tunnel on the merits—i.e., it's bad for the environment (which it is)—and Conlin would be forced to stop giving the tunnel a bad name by making stuff up.
Given the lessons learned from light rail (and the monorail), it's weird that there isn't a politician on the pro-tunnel side who's willing to step into this role.
If the Seattle Six (the six Seattle-area state representatives who went along with Speaker Frank Chopp's amendment to put Seattle property owners on the hook for cost overruns) had taken this position back in 2009— instead of going along with the bum deal to get their tunnel—the city wouldn't be so divided right now.
Maybe some honest leaders would help.
