This Washington
State, City, County Leaders Stand United Against McGinn on Tunnel
At a press conference at Sound Transit headquarters packed with labor leaders, downtown businesses leaders, and city and county staffers this morning, Gov. Chris Gregoire announced that the state has joined a lawsuit filed by Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes earlier this week to avert a public referendum on three agreements the city council signed with the state on the deep-bore tunnel---a declaration of war, essentially, against Mayor Mike McGinn, who has insisted that "the people have a right to vote" on the project whether or not the three agreements are legally subject to the referendum process. In his suit, Holmes argues that they are not.
"We have joined in to the lawsuit brought by Pete Holmes," Gregoire said. "We have every intention of making it clear that we believe, legally, that [the agreements are] not referable to the voters. We have ... a binding contract. It is time to move on."
Gregoire said the state had the legal right to move forward on the project despite the fact that referendum supporters turned in signatures earlier this week. "There is no referendum today," Gregoire said.
"Had Pete Holmes not brought the action, we would have brought the action," Gregoire said.
Asked whether she thought the people should be allowed to have a say on the tunnel (nearly 29,000 Seattle voters signed petitions to put the anti-tunnel measure on the ballot), Gregoire said she was "really sorry ... that they were asked to [collect signatures]" (a harsh jab at what everyone knows is a McGinn campaign.)
In unusually strong language, city, county, and state representatives---including city council member Richard Conlin, King County Executive Dow Constantine, and Gregoire---said elected officials had repeatedly approved the tunnel, and argued that a referendum aimed at stopping the project would result in costly delays.
Gregoire, who argued that "the cost of delay will fall squarely on our taxpayers," setting the state back and "threaten[ng] our economy," said that to delay building the tunnel would cost tens of millions. "Who's going to pay for that $20 million [a month], " Gregoire asked rhetorically, referring to the amount the state estimates it would have to spend for every month of delay due to a referendum.
City and county leaders were equally adamant about the need to move forward on the tunnel. Conlin, who called the tunnel "the green alternative," said he supported the surface/transit alternative (McGinn's preferred option) until he "came to the conclusion that it's just not workable" a few years ago.
"There's been no attempt by [McGinn] as mayor to come together and provide a solution," Conlin said. Instead, "he has provided nothing but a vision of gridlock and a formula for not making progress on this project."
"It's disappointing that [the tunnel] has not received the support that it ought to receive from a mayor who has claimed to be the green mayor," Conlin said.
I asked Gregoire why, given that she vowed back in 2008 to tear down the viaduct by 2012, she's now supporting a tunnel plan that would leave the viaduct up until 2015 at the earliest. Her response: "What we heard loud and clear in public comments is, if you're going to replace it with the tunnel, don't take down the viaduct unless you have to, so that we can avoid the congestion downtown." She added: "If we think at any time that the viaduct is not safe for people, we will lock it up" and close the highway off to traffic.
Josh then asked why, given that the tunnel is a state project, state law puts the city on the hook for cost overruns. Gregoire said unequivocally: "I think we all know now, based on the advice of the city attorney and attorney, that the city is not on the hook for cost overruns," Gregoire said. "It would require another act of the legislature, which I would veto. I've made that clear."
Both Conlin and Gregoire referred repeatedly to the supposed "$1 million cost" of holding an election on the tunnel agreements. However, both city council member Mike O'Brien and Mayor Mike McGinn noted after the press conference that the referendum would be an item on the August primary ballot, and wouldn't cost the city any extra money at all.
Asked for a reaction to today's show of force, McGinn issued a terse, two-line statement this afternoon. “State law says Seattle will pay for all cost overruns on the deep-bored tunnel. Before putting the public on the hook for cost overruns, we should first ask their permission. That’s why I support a public vote.”
"We have joined in to the lawsuit brought by Pete Holmes," Gregoire said. "We have every intention of making it clear that we believe, legally, that [the agreements are] not referable to the voters. We have ... a binding contract. It is time to move on."
Gregoire said the state had the legal right to move forward on the project despite the fact that referendum supporters turned in signatures earlier this week. "There is no referendum today," Gregoire said.
"Had Pete Holmes not brought the action, we would have brought the action," Gregoire said.
Asked whether she thought the people should be allowed to have a say on the tunnel (nearly 29,000 Seattle voters signed petitions to put the anti-tunnel measure on the ballot), Gregoire said she was "really sorry ... that they were asked to [collect signatures]" (a harsh jab at what everyone knows is a McGinn campaign.)
In unusually strong language, city, county, and state representatives---including city council member Richard Conlin, King County Executive Dow Constantine, and Gregoire---said elected officials had repeatedly approved the tunnel, and argued that a referendum aimed at stopping the project would result in costly delays.
Gregoire, who argued that "the cost of delay will fall squarely on our taxpayers," setting the state back and "threaten[ng] our economy," said that to delay building the tunnel would cost tens of millions. "Who's going to pay for that $20 million [a month], " Gregoire asked rhetorically, referring to the amount the state estimates it would have to spend for every month of delay due to a referendum.
City and county leaders were equally adamant about the need to move forward on the tunnel. Conlin, who called the tunnel "the green alternative," said he supported the surface/transit alternative (McGinn's preferred option) until he "came to the conclusion that it's just not workable" a few years ago.
"There's been no attempt by [McGinn] as mayor to come together and provide a solution," Conlin said. Instead, "he has provided nothing but a vision of gridlock and a formula for not making progress on this project."
"It's disappointing that [the tunnel] has not received the support that it ought to receive from a mayor who has claimed to be the green mayor," Conlin said.
I asked Gregoire why, given that she vowed back in 2008 to tear down the viaduct by 2012, she's now supporting a tunnel plan that would leave the viaduct up until 2015 at the earliest. Her response: "What we heard loud and clear in public comments is, if you're going to replace it with the tunnel, don't take down the viaduct unless you have to, so that we can avoid the congestion downtown." She added: "If we think at any time that the viaduct is not safe for people, we will lock it up" and close the highway off to traffic.
Josh then asked why, given that the tunnel is a state project, state law puts the city on the hook for cost overruns. Gregoire said unequivocally: "I think we all know now, based on the advice of the city attorney and attorney, that the city is not on the hook for cost overruns," Gregoire said. "It would require another act of the legislature, which I would veto. I've made that clear."
Both Conlin and Gregoire referred repeatedly to the supposed "$1 million cost" of holding an election on the tunnel agreements. However, both city council member Mike O'Brien and Mayor Mike McGinn noted after the press conference that the referendum would be an item on the August primary ballot, and wouldn't cost the city any extra money at all.
Asked for a reaction to today's show of force, McGinn issued a terse, two-line statement this afternoon. “State law says Seattle will pay for all cost overruns on the deep-bored tunnel. Before putting the public on the hook for cost overruns, we should first ask their permission. That’s why I support a public vote.”
