City Hall
Council Will Put Tunnel Referendum On Ballot
In a subdued press conference this afternoon, four members of the Seattle City Council said they planned to send an ordinance to put a portion of legislation adopting three agreements on the deep-bore tunnel on the ballot Monday. However, they argued that the referendum---which King County Superior Court judge Laura Gene Middaugh ruled
could go to the ballot this afternoon---was merely a vote on the "process" for moving the tunnel forward, and not an up-or-down vote on the tunnel itself, which is how tunnel opponents have represented it.
"This is not a referendum on the tunnel; that decision is going to be made by the state," council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen said. "This is a statement [about] how we move forward. It's a typical Seattle decision on process."
Pressed on whether the vote would be seen as a vote on the tunnel---regardless of its actual legal impacts---Rasmussen responded, "Some may take this as a symbolic vote. ... The tunnel opponents will view this as a victory for their proposal, which is a surface/transit option."
However, council members said that despite council president Richard Conlin's suggestion that the council might put the surface/transit option on the ballot alongside the tunnel referendum, the council would likely put the referendum on the ballot by itself. "My concern is that it will confuse the voters."
Council member Mike O'Brien, the council's only tunnel opponent, stood behind reporters during the press conference. Afterward, he said that although the vote would technically be on "a policy decision," the larger point is that "the people have a way to intervene" in the process of approving the tunnel. If the people do vote to require the council to pass an ordinance to move forward on the tunnel, O'Brien noted, that ordinance, too, would be subject to a potential referendum.
"What I would prefer would be that over the next month or two, we have a conversation about what are the options" rather than passing another referendum, O'Brien said.
"This is not a referendum on the tunnel; that decision is going to be made by the state," council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen said. "This is a statement [about] how we move forward. It's a typical Seattle decision on process."
Pressed on whether the vote would be seen as a vote on the tunnel---regardless of its actual legal impacts---Rasmussen responded, "Some may take this as a symbolic vote. ... The tunnel opponents will view this as a victory for their proposal, which is a surface/transit option."
However, council members said that despite council president Richard Conlin's suggestion that the council might put the surface/transit option on the ballot alongside the tunnel referendum, the council would likely put the referendum on the ballot by itself. "My concern is that it will confuse the voters."
Council member Mike O'Brien, the council's only tunnel opponent, stood behind reporters during the press conference. Afterward, he said that although the vote would technically be on "a policy decision," the larger point is that "the people have a way to intervene" in the process of approving the tunnel. If the people do vote to require the council to pass an ordinance to move forward on the tunnel, O'Brien noted, that ordinance, too, would be subject to a potential referendum.
"What I would prefer would be that over the next month or two, we have a conversation about what are the options" rather than passing another referendum, O'Brien said.
