City Hall
McGinn vs. State Legislators on Tunnel Overruns
If Mayor Mike McGinn is successful in his effort to insert language into a city-state agreement halting tunnel construction unless the state legislature removes language in state law that puts "Seattle-area property owners who benefit" from the project on the hook for cost overruns, state legislators say it's unlikely that they will revisit the language any time soon.
"You would have to test it in the courts, and nobody's going to test it," says state representative Deb Eddy (D-48), who sits on the House transportation committee. "It's a political hot potato that's getting tossed around, but the only way you would ever resolve it is an attempt to [tax Seattle property owners to pay for overruns] and get challenged. Without all of that being tested, it's all just b.s." Eddy says the tunnel "is just not that big a deal" to the legislature.
State Sen. Ed Murray (D-43) says he would like to modify the agreement, but that "I don't have a real as to whether that is a broadly shared feeling among my colleagues." Neither of the legislature's two transportation committee chairs—Judy Clibborn (D-41) and Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) have responded to requests for comment.
At a press conference today, McGinn accused the legislature of engaging in "doublespeak"—arguing on one hand that the cost overrun language is meaningless and unenforceable, and on the other, that they can't change the language because to do so would be too risky. "I ask who will pay, and I never get a straight answer," McGinn said. "What we get is an attack on the messenger. ... It's very inconsistent on this point of what the state believes—either it's not a big deal and they'll pay, or it's a really big deal and they don't want to be responsible."
I noted that, as Eddy pointed out to me, the cost-overruns provision was the handiwork of House speaker Frank Chopp (D-43), ostensibly an ally of McGinn's in his opposition to the tunnel. ("I'm sure Frank's in the background chuckling somewhere," Eddy said). Had McGinn talked to Chopp about getting rid of the provision?
"I have spoken to Speaker Chopp, and what he's told me is that it was essential to have that language for the state to pass" the tunnel legislation, McGinn said. "If we want the state to change its position we need to, as a city, say we want them to change it."
"You would have to test it in the courts, and nobody's going to test it," says state representative Deb Eddy (D-48), who sits on the House transportation committee. "It's a political hot potato that's getting tossed around, but the only way you would ever resolve it is an attempt to [tax Seattle property owners to pay for overruns] and get challenged. Without all of that being tested, it's all just b.s." Eddy says the tunnel "is just not that big a deal" to the legislature.
State Sen. Ed Murray (D-43) says he would like to modify the agreement, but that "I don't have a real as to whether that is a broadly shared feeling among my colleagues." Neither of the legislature's two transportation committee chairs—Judy Clibborn (D-41) and Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) have responded to requests for comment.
At a press conference today, McGinn accused the legislature of engaging in "doublespeak"—arguing on one hand that the cost overrun language is meaningless and unenforceable, and on the other, that they can't change the language because to do so would be too risky. "I ask who will pay, and I never get a straight answer," McGinn said. "What we get is an attack on the messenger. ... It's very inconsistent on this point of what the state believes—either it's not a big deal and they'll pay, or it's a really big deal and they don't want to be responsible."
I noted that, as Eddy pointed out to me, the cost-overruns provision was the handiwork of House speaker Frank Chopp (D-43), ostensibly an ally of McGinn's in his opposition to the tunnel. ("I'm sure Frank's in the background chuckling somewhere," Eddy said). Had McGinn talked to Chopp about getting rid of the provision?
"I have spoken to Speaker Chopp, and what he's told me is that it was essential to have that language for the state to pass" the tunnel legislation, McGinn said. "If we want the state to change its position we need to, as a city, say we want them to change it."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
