This Washington
As McGinn Starts Figuring Out City's Plan on Overruns Issue in Olympia, Rep. Carlyle Offers Different Approach.
There was actually an earlier (and maybe bigger) opponent of the legislature's tunnel cost overruns provision than Mayor Mike McGinn: Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36, Seattle).
As a freshman in the Democratic caucus, Carlyle took the risky move of going public against powerful Speaker of the House Frank Chopp over the issue, speaking out against it in caucus he says and on the House floor on the day of the vote. Carlyle wasn't just being parochial about Seattle's interests, he saw a larger fundamental issue: The provision set a precedent for abdicating state responsibility for local needs.
On the day before the vote, he wrote an email to his colleagues:
And not only was Carlyle one of the five Seattle reps who voted against the infamous tunnel cost overruns provisions, it was an outraged Carlyle who first pointed out Chopp's provision to the press , clutching the amendment sheet in his fist and charging up to this reporter outside the chamber saying: "Have you seen this?"
However, McGinn can't count on Carlyle to make the mayor's case in Olympia. It's not that Carlyle has flip-flopped on the issue. He just doesn't believe the mayor is going about it the right way.
McGinn called Carlyle yesterday as he begins checking in with the Seattle delegation about the session and the overruns provision. McGinn is trying to get the cost overruns provision struck from the tunnel legislation.
Or at least he says he is. Many, including Carlyle, believe the mayor actually wants the provision to remain in place because it's "the hook in McGinn's case to escalate public anxiety as a way to win his case against the tunnel" and put his preferred surface transit option in play, says Carlyle. (McGinn calls those kinds of conspiracy theories speculation "that piles on top of itself into ontological mazes," and says it's not up to him to build or not build the tunnel. "The city and the state have decided they want to build the tunnel. I'm just asking the question, 'who's going to pay for overruns?' It's the prudent thing to do," McGinn tells PubliCola.)
By hyping the issue, though, and making it about reluctant legislators (including the City Council, which wouldn't go along with McGinn's demand that they include language in their contract with the state that calls for removing the provision), Carlyle believes McGinn is playing politics instead of addressing the real issue—the reality of the cost overruns provision. "The facts on the ground blow his case out of the water," Carlyle says, adding that there's a much better way to smoke out the overruns provision.
Indeed, Carlyle, a tunnel supporter, told McGinn that the burden isn't on legislators to remove the provision. (Everyone from the state attorney general to the governor to the Seattle city attorney has said the provision isn't enforceable). The burden is actually on those who are attached to the cost overruns provision to pass new legislation to implement the provision.
Says Carlyle: "Rather than there being a burden to withdraw the intent section, there is a burden on those who want to implement that section."
The legislature passes legislation with intent all the time (like, say, lowering carbon emission standards to 1990 levels by 2050, which has become a bit of a joke among legislators, apparently, for being "aspirational" not enforceable.) Without specific rules on how to do it, intent is not constitutionally enforceable.
Indeed, AG Rob McKenna's office wrote: "Further legislation would be required to make the 2009 Legislature's intent operative."
Carlyle again: "The law [the overruns provision] does not meet a constitutional requirement to be sufficiently specific so that it can be implemented. It requires further legislation would have to be passed and signed by the governor that clarifies it [which Seattle area property owners benefit? what constitutes the Seattle are? How are they taxed?] to implement the intent section."
Carlyle, well aware that the Seattle delegation has been mocked for not flexing its muscle down in Olympia (again, the majority of his colleagues in the House voted for the extraordinary cost overruns provision), says the delegation—18 reps and senators all together—is united on this one.
"The legislation would not pass," he says.
McGinn, who points out that the legislature also put a $2.4 billion funding cap on the tunnel project, says: "if the legislature has no intent to follow through on the overruns provision, than they should have no trouble removing it." As for McKenna's language, McGinn says he's not comfortable leaving Seattle's fate up to the whims of future legislatures.
He prefers the approach of removing the provision because he wants to know that Seattle isn't on the hook "before we start the project" not "when we have the tunnel boring machine stuck underground."
As a freshman in the Democratic caucus, Carlyle took the risky move of going public against powerful Speaker of the House Frank Chopp over the issue, speaking out against it in caucus he says and on the House floor on the day of the vote. Carlyle wasn't just being parochial about Seattle's interests, he saw a larger fundamental issue: The provision set a precedent for abdicating state responsibility for local needs.
On the day before the vote, he wrote an email to his colleagues:
This ... sets the public policy precedent that future state project overruns (buildings, ferries, roads) of any type or size are vulnerable to becoming the obligation of local governments in which the projects reside or benefit. ...
This policy change is an abdication of the state’s fiduciary obligations, in my view, and encourages spending inefficiency or worse.
And not only was Carlyle one of the five Seattle reps who voted against the infamous tunnel cost overruns provisions, it was an outraged Carlyle who first pointed out Chopp's provision to the press , clutching the amendment sheet in his fist and charging up to this reporter outside the chamber saying: "Have you seen this?"
However, McGinn can't count on Carlyle to make the mayor's case in Olympia. It's not that Carlyle has flip-flopped on the issue. He just doesn't believe the mayor is going about it the right way.
McGinn called Carlyle yesterday as he begins checking in with the Seattle delegation about the session and the overruns provision. McGinn is trying to get the cost overruns provision struck from the tunnel legislation.
Or at least he says he is. Many, including Carlyle, believe the mayor actually wants the provision to remain in place because it's "the hook in McGinn's case to escalate public anxiety as a way to win his case against the tunnel" and put his preferred surface transit option in play, says Carlyle. (McGinn calls those kinds of conspiracy theories speculation "that piles on top of itself into ontological mazes," and says it's not up to him to build or not build the tunnel. "The city and the state have decided they want to build the tunnel. I'm just asking the question, 'who's going to pay for overruns?' It's the prudent thing to do," McGinn tells PubliCola.)
By hyping the issue, though, and making it about reluctant legislators (including the City Council, which wouldn't go along with McGinn's demand that they include language in their contract with the state that calls for removing the provision), Carlyle believes McGinn is playing politics instead of addressing the real issue—the reality of the cost overruns provision. "The facts on the ground blow his case out of the water," Carlyle says, adding that there's a much better way to smoke out the overruns provision.
Indeed, Carlyle, a tunnel supporter, told McGinn that the burden isn't on legislators to remove the provision. (Everyone from the state attorney general to the governor to the Seattle city attorney has said the provision isn't enforceable). The burden is actually on those who are attached to the cost overruns provision to pass new legislation to implement the provision.
Says Carlyle: "Rather than there being a burden to withdraw the intent section, there is a burden on those who want to implement that section."
The legislature passes legislation with intent all the time (like, say, lowering carbon emission standards to 1990 levels by 2050, which has become a bit of a joke among legislators, apparently, for being "aspirational" not enforceable.) Without specific rules on how to do it, intent is not constitutionally enforceable.
Indeed, AG Rob McKenna's office wrote: "Further legislation would be required to make the 2009 Legislature's intent operative."
Carlyle again: "The law [the overruns provision] does not meet a constitutional requirement to be sufficiently specific so that it can be implemented. It requires further legislation would have to be passed and signed by the governor that clarifies it [which Seattle area property owners benefit? what constitutes the Seattle are? How are they taxed?] to implement the intent section."
Carlyle, well aware that the Seattle delegation has been mocked for not flexing its muscle down in Olympia (again, the majority of his colleagues in the House voted for the extraordinary cost overruns provision), says the delegation—18 reps and senators all together—is united on this one.
"The legislation would not pass," he says.
McGinn, who points out that the legislature also put a $2.4 billion funding cap on the tunnel project, says: "if the legislature has no intent to follow through on the overruns provision, than they should have no trouble removing it." As for McKenna's language, McGinn says he's not comfortable leaving Seattle's fate up to the whims of future legislatures.
He prefers the approach of removing the provision because he wants to know that Seattle isn't on the hook "before we start the project" not "when we have the tunnel boring machine stuck underground."
