City Hall
McGinn: Tunnel Process is a "Sham"
During a press availability this afternoon, Mayor Mike McGinn called the process for moving the deep-bore tunnel forward a "sham" perpetrated by people who "will say or do anything to promote the tunnel, no matter what the public says, no matter what the facts say, no matter what the law says."
Last week, city council president Richard Conlin signed a supplemental draft environmental impact statement on behalf of the city for the deep-bore tunnel. McGinn objected, saying Conlin had no legal authority under the city charter to sign on the city's behalf.
At today's briefing, I asked McGinn: Yes, we understand your position on Conlin's signature, but what are you going to do?
For example: If the council votes to ratify Conlin's signature, which they seem likely to do with a veto-proof vote on Monday, what course of action might the mayor take?
"I will try to figure out the path forward," McGinn said. But, he added, "You're asking me what path I will follow in the face of people who will say or do anything for the tunnel. ... Conlin's signature does not override state and local law. ... When they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they just come up with a new excuse.
"This process is a sham. It's a mockery of the legal process, it's a mockery of the environmental process. So I've called on Conlin and the council to respect the process."
McGinn maintained today that not only is Conlin's signature invalid, the city has never been a co-lead on the tunnel, because the city and state never signed a formal co-lead agreement. "We don't have an EIS, we don't currently have a colead agreement, we don't have an agreement to proceed with the tunnel."
McGinn said he had not had time to review the document. Last week, he asked for a one-week extension to read through the SDEIS; that deadline would have been tomorrow.
"I'm sure that there will be time for me to review and provide comment on the EIS at some point, but I'm not setting a deadline for myself to do that," he said.
Last week, city council president Richard Conlin signed a supplemental draft environmental impact statement on behalf of the city for the deep-bore tunnel. McGinn objected, saying Conlin had no legal authority under the city charter to sign on the city's behalf.
At today's briefing, I asked McGinn: Yes, we understand your position on Conlin's signature, but what are you going to do?
For example: If the council votes to ratify Conlin's signature, which they seem likely to do with a veto-proof vote on Monday, what course of action might the mayor take?
"I will try to figure out the path forward," McGinn said. But, he added, "You're asking me what path I will follow in the face of people who will say or do anything for the tunnel. ... Conlin's signature does not override state and local law. ... When they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they just come up with a new excuse.
"This process is a sham. It's a mockery of the legal process, it's a mockery of the environmental process. So I've called on Conlin and the council to respect the process."
McGinn maintained today that not only is Conlin's signature invalid, the city has never been a co-lead on the tunnel, because the city and state never signed a formal co-lead agreement. "We don't have an EIS, we don't currently have a colead agreement, we don't have an agreement to proceed with the tunnel."
McGinn said he had not had time to review the document. Last week, he asked for a one-week extension to read through the SDEIS; that deadline would have been tomorrow.
"I'm sure that there will be time for me to review and provide comment on the EIS at some point, but I'm not setting a deadline for myself to do that," he said.
