City Hall
Shocker: Godden Opposes Amendment Affirming Right to Vote on Tunnel
In a letter to Friends of Seattle leaders, City Council member Jean Godden—who accused Mayor Mike McGinn of "engaging in textbook manipulation" by raising fears about tunnel cost overruns in a recent column for Crosscut—said she will not support two amendments to the council's tunnel resolution proposed by Friends of Seattle.
As we reported in Fizz this morning, the first amendment would affirm that the council “does not intend to abridge the people’s power to subject city ordinances to a public referendum”—a statement, essentially, that the council will allow a referendum on the tunnel to go forward if citizens propose one in the future. The second amendment says the council believes that a state law putting Seattle-area property owners on the hook for cost overruns is legally unenforceable.
In her letter, Godden writes: "I do believe that [the amendments] accomplish much the same thing as section Two and Three of our resolution," which say that the state is responsible for paying all costs related to the tunnel, and that the city isn't responsible for overruns. "The resolution which will be considered for passage on Monday is quite explicit on both points. The wording has been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal staff. Obviously we cannot rewrite state law, but this is as close as we can come to saying 'hell no."
"Regarding a referendum," Godden continues, "I believe that would be an unfortunate approach at this late date in consideration of the AWV replacement. We have debated this for the past 10 years, while the viaduct becomes ever more of a risk."
Friends of Seattle is writing a response to Godden's column; in an email, FoS president Gary Manca wondered, "Why is she opposed to recognizing the people's power of referendum (and initiative, for that matter)?"
As we reported in Fizz this morning, the first amendment would affirm that the council “does not intend to abridge the people’s power to subject city ordinances to a public referendum”—a statement, essentially, that the council will allow a referendum on the tunnel to go forward if citizens propose one in the future. The second amendment says the council believes that a state law putting Seattle-area property owners on the hook for cost overruns is legally unenforceable.
In her letter, Godden writes: "I do believe that [the amendments] accomplish much the same thing as section Two and Three of our resolution," which say that the state is responsible for paying all costs related to the tunnel, and that the city isn't responsible for overruns. "The resolution which will be considered for passage on Monday is quite explicit on both points. The wording has been thoroughly reviewed by the city’s legal staff. Obviously we cannot rewrite state law, but this is as close as we can come to saying 'hell no."
"Regarding a referendum," Godden continues, "I believe that would be an unfortunate approach at this late date in consideration of the AWV replacement. We have debated this for the past 10 years, while the viaduct becomes ever more of a risk."
Friends of Seattle is writing a response to Godden's column; in an email, FoS president Gary Manca wondered, "Why is she opposed to recognizing the people's power of referendum (and initiative, for that matter)?"
