City Hall
Council Votes on Tunnel Agreements; Referendum Possible
After a barrage of comments from fans and opponents of the deep-bore tunnel (labor and business, on the pro side, outnumbered opponents at least four to one), the city council just voted to approve three agreements with the state that council members say are necessary for design work on the tunnel to move forward.
The city will have to re-affirm the agreements later this year, once the state releases its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the tunnel.
Tunnel opponents will hold a meeting tonight to discuss whether they'll file a referendum that would overturn the agreements adopted today. One big question they'll be discussing is whether today's agreements are legally binding at all, given that the city has to re-adopt the agreements after the FEIS is released. Another question: If today's ordinance was overturned by referendum, would it be superseded by the second ordinance formally adopting the agreements (i.e., would the referendum stick)?
"From our campaign's point of view, this is just one more contract that could be broken," says Drew Paxton, spokesman for Move Seattle Smarter. Paxton's group is currently gathering signatures for an initiative aimed at ensuring the city isn't responsible for cost overruns on the tunnel.
Tunnel proponents on the council spoke in elevated terms in favor of the project, noting that "it's been ten years" since the Nisqually earthquake damaged the viaduct. "We can't delay any more," council member Sally Bagshaw said. "This is moving from the darkness into the light … and creating this great waterfront" in the process. Council member Richard Conlin said the council was "acting in the great spirit of representative democracy." And council member Jean Godden compared the project to the Grand Coulee Dam.
Rhetoric aside, council member Sally Clark added that the agreements give the city a seat at the table during tunnel discussions. "Trust is great, but it would be better to have [city] staff in the room," Clark said. "What we're doing today is about protecting Seattle's interests. Choosing to not be in the room … guarantees that we get basically what they give us." (From the state's perspective, that's not quite true: The state has to have the city's approval to build in City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, and Seattle Department of Transportation right-of-way).
As at every previous tunnel meeting, only council member Mike O'Brien spoke out against the project. Noting that the Port of Seattle hasn't said where its $300 million contribution will come from; that the project would put 80,000 more cars on downtown surface streets per day; and that the contingency fund has shrunk to 10 percent of the project, O'Brien said he couldn't understand why businesses would support it.
As a former CFO at a law firm, O'Brien said, "I'm a little baffled. ... This is the type of project we could never recommend in a business. … For a community that constantly calls on government to act more like a business, I find it troubling that you would say, let's just jump into this with no funding."
Addressing the dozens of hard-hat-wearing, sign-wielding union members in the room, O'Brien added, "I've got no beef with you guys. If I didn't have a job and I worked in a trade, I would be standing out there holding one of those signs with you. ... We have a responsibility to create projects that put people like you to work. Unfortunately, this project is a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem."
The full council will vote on the agreements at 2:00 this afternoon.
The city will have to re-affirm the agreements later this year, once the state releases its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the tunnel.
Tunnel opponents will hold a meeting tonight to discuss whether they'll file a referendum that would overturn the agreements adopted today. One big question they'll be discussing is whether today's agreements are legally binding at all, given that the city has to re-adopt the agreements after the FEIS is released. Another question: If today's ordinance was overturned by referendum, would it be superseded by the second ordinance formally adopting the agreements (i.e., would the referendum stick)?
"From our campaign's point of view, this is just one more contract that could be broken," says Drew Paxton, spokesman for Move Seattle Smarter. Paxton's group is currently gathering signatures for an initiative aimed at ensuring the city isn't responsible for cost overruns on the tunnel.
Tunnel proponents on the council spoke in elevated terms in favor of the project, noting that "it's been ten years" since the Nisqually earthquake damaged the viaduct. "We can't delay any more," council member Sally Bagshaw said. "This is moving from the darkness into the light … and creating this great waterfront" in the process. Council member Richard Conlin said the council was "acting in the great spirit of representative democracy." And council member Jean Godden compared the project to the Grand Coulee Dam.
Rhetoric aside, council member Sally Clark added that the agreements give the city a seat at the table during tunnel discussions. "Trust is great, but it would be better to have [city] staff in the room," Clark said. "What we're doing today is about protecting Seattle's interests. Choosing to not be in the room … guarantees that we get basically what they give us." (From the state's perspective, that's not quite true: The state has to have the city's approval to build in City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, and Seattle Department of Transportation right-of-way).
As at every previous tunnel meeting, only council member Mike O'Brien spoke out against the project. Noting that the Port of Seattle hasn't said where its $300 million contribution will come from; that the project would put 80,000 more cars on downtown surface streets per day; and that the contingency fund has shrunk to 10 percent of the project, O'Brien said he couldn't understand why businesses would support it.
As a former CFO at a law firm, O'Brien said, "I'm a little baffled. ... This is the type of project we could never recommend in a business. … For a community that constantly calls on government to act more like a business, I find it troubling that you would say, let's just jump into this with no funding."
Addressing the dozens of hard-hat-wearing, sign-wielding union members in the room, O'Brien added, "I've got no beef with you guys. If I didn't have a job and I worked in a trade, I would be standing out there holding one of those signs with you. ... We have a responsibility to create projects that put people like you to work. Unfortunately, this project is a 20th century answer to a 21st century problem."
The full council will vote on the agreements at 2:00 this afternoon.
