City
Tunnel Referendum Language Released
Just in time for today's ThinkTank debate on what Seattle residents will actually be voting on when they say yes or no to a referendum on the deep-bore tunnel, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes just released the language for the August ballot measure---in the most literal terms, what we'll actually be voting on.
The Seattle City Council passed Ordinance Number 123542 entering into agreements related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Section 6 of that ordinance has been referred to the voters for approval or rejection.
Section 6, if approved, would authorize the City Council to give notice to proceed, beyond preliminary design work, with three agreements concerning the State’s proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel. Section 6 states: “The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
Should this ordinance section be:
Approved?
Rejected?
Translation: The referendum will be on whether the city council has the authority to move forward with three agreements with the state, allowing things like access to city streets for tunnel construction, by a simple resolution or whether it has to adopt an ordinance, which would itself be subject to referendum.
Of course, none of this resolves the question of whether the measure will be seen as an up-or-down vote on the tunnel. That will be up to the pro- and anti-tunnel campaigns, which will argue, respectively, that the referendum is about an arcane process question, and that it's a symbolic vote on Seattle residents' support for the tunnel. Weigh in on the debate yourself here.
The Seattle City Council passed Ordinance Number 123542 entering into agreements related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. Section 6 of that ordinance has been referred to the voters for approval or rejection.
Section 6, if approved, would authorize the City Council to give notice to proceed, beyond preliminary design work, with three agreements concerning the State’s proposal to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel. Section 6 states: “The City Council is authorized to decide whether to issue the notice referenced in Section 2.3 of each Agreement. That decision shall be made at an open public meeting held after issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”
Should this ordinance section be:
Approved?
Rejected?
Translation: The referendum will be on whether the city council has the authority to move forward with three agreements with the state, allowing things like access to city streets for tunnel construction, by a simple resolution or whether it has to adopt an ordinance, which would itself be subject to referendum.
Of course, none of this resolves the question of whether the measure will be seen as an up-or-down vote on the tunnel. That will be up to the pro- and anti-tunnel campaigns, which will argue, respectively, that the referendum is about an arcane process question, and that it's a symbolic vote on Seattle residents' support for the tunnel. Weigh in on the debate yourself here.
