Jolt
Afternoon Jolt: The Mayor and the Council
Today's (tunnel) winner: The City Council. Today's (tunnel) loser: Mayor Mike McGinn.
On Seattle Channel host C.R. Douglas' final shows with the mayor and city council members ("Ask the Mayor" and "City Inside/Out, Council Edition") this past week, the conversation gravitated, inevitably, to the tunnel.
And while Mayor Mike McGinn fell back on tired sound bites ("I'm just asking the question---who will pay for cost overruns?"), council members Sally Bagshaw, Tim Burgess, and Richard Conlin eviscerated the anti-tunnel arguments with undeniably (whether you agree with them or not) sharp points about the implications of the tunnel referendum and the impacts of simply tearing down the viaduct and doing nothing.
First up: McGinn. Douglas asked the mayor: Hasn't the city become less of a partner on the tunnel process since you were elected? And, what role will you play in the tunnel campaign, which will inevitably be portrayed as a referendum on your administration?
McGinn's response: "That would be [tunnel proponents'] view, but what they want is uncritical acceptance of their position. It's my job as mayor to make sure we're looking out for the city's interests, and as much as the tunnel proponents love that project, I can't abandon [those interests]. So we have to have an understanding of the fact that there are no tunnel exits, and [that] tolling will lead to tens of thousands of cars on surface streets.
"I believe the public deserves a vote on this. ... If you think it's all right for the council to just move ahead and take on the risk of that tunnel, then ou should vote yes. ... If the public wants the city council to say, hold it, we have serious issues and concerns, then they should vote no."
Then the mayor fell back on another familiar sound bite: Like the pro-tunnel camp, the 2007 roads and transit campaign claimed that if it went down, there would be no alternative. However, light rail came back the next year to win on its own. Similarly, McGinn claims, the surface/transit option can win on its own even if the tunnel goes down in flames. "In the long run … we'll find something we can afford and that does the job, as opposed to something we can't afford and that doesn't do the job," McGinn said optimistically.
On the council side, McGinn's counterparts were angry, riled up, and ready to defend the tunnel to the bitter end. Asked what the implication of not building the tunnel would be, council member (and potential 2013 McGinn opponent) Tim Burgess said bluntly, "If we take down the viaduct and do nothing else, we will take ten lanes of traffic and replace them with just four lanes of traffic. That is going to lead to massive gridlock in our city and ruin downtown as a pedestrian destination. It is going to severely hamper our ability to develop the waterfront. ... So if people view this as a vote on the tunnel, it's very important that they understand the implications. ... The mayor is not coming up with an alternative. He's just saying, reject this tunnel, and that is the kind of obstructionism that is very damaging to our community."
Conlin, smirking slightly, added, "The mayor said during his campaign that he would not stand in the way of the tunnel that had been adopted by the council and the mayor as the preferred alternative. I the answer to [the question of whether the mayor will respect the outcome of the referendum vote] is, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
On Seattle Channel host C.R. Douglas' final shows with the mayor and city council members ("Ask the Mayor" and "City Inside/Out, Council Edition") this past week, the conversation gravitated, inevitably, to the tunnel.
And while Mayor Mike McGinn fell back on tired sound bites ("I'm just asking the question---who will pay for cost overruns?"), council members Sally Bagshaw, Tim Burgess, and Richard Conlin eviscerated the anti-tunnel arguments with undeniably (whether you agree with them or not) sharp points about the implications of the tunnel referendum and the impacts of simply tearing down the viaduct and doing nothing.
First up: McGinn. Douglas asked the mayor: Hasn't the city become less of a partner on the tunnel process since you were elected? And, what role will you play in the tunnel campaign, which will inevitably be portrayed as a referendum on your administration?
McGinn's response: "That would be [tunnel proponents'] view, but what they want is uncritical acceptance of their position. It's my job as mayor to make sure we're looking out for the city's interests, and as much as the tunnel proponents love that project, I can't abandon [those interests]. So we have to have an understanding of the fact that there are no tunnel exits, and [that] tolling will lead to tens of thousands of cars on surface streets.
"I believe the public deserves a vote on this. ... If you think it's all right for the council to just move ahead and take on the risk of that tunnel, then ou should vote yes. ... If the public wants the city council to say, hold it, we have serious issues and concerns, then they should vote no."
Then the mayor fell back on another familiar sound bite: Like the pro-tunnel camp, the 2007 roads and transit campaign claimed that if it went down, there would be no alternative. However, light rail came back the next year to win on its own. Similarly, McGinn claims, the surface/transit option can win on its own even if the tunnel goes down in flames. "In the long run … we'll find something we can afford and that does the job, as opposed to something we can't afford and that doesn't do the job," McGinn said optimistically.
On the council side, McGinn's counterparts were angry, riled up, and ready to defend the tunnel to the bitter end. Asked what the implication of not building the tunnel would be, council member (and potential 2013 McGinn opponent) Tim Burgess said bluntly, "If we take down the viaduct and do nothing else, we will take ten lanes of traffic and replace them with just four lanes of traffic. That is going to lead to massive gridlock in our city and ruin downtown as a pedestrian destination. It is going to severely hamper our ability to develop the waterfront. ... So if people view this as a vote on the tunnel, it's very important that they understand the implications. ... The mayor is not coming up with an alternative. He's just saying, reject this tunnel, and that is the kind of obstructionism that is very damaging to our community."
Conlin, smirking slightly, added, "The mayor said during his campaign that he would not stand in the way of the tunnel that had been adopted by the council and the mayor as the preferred alternative. I the answer to [the question of whether the mayor will respect the outcome of the referendum vote] is, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
