News
Cola Campaign Ratings: The Tunnel Referendum
Sticking with our commitment to be a more objective and balanced source of news (yep, this “liberal” site is the site that broke the story about the trickery of Democratic consulting firm, Moxie Media), we’re doing things differently this year than we have in the past. This year, we’re not going to tell you how to vote... Exactly.
Inspired by the even-keeled Seattle/King County Municipal League, which ranks candidates based on skill, experience, and policy acumen rather than on ideology, we’ve been talking to candidates and interviewing folks on both sides of the ballot measures and coming up with our own ratings .
For the ballot measures---namely, the veterans and human services levy and the tunnel referendum---we're identifying the best and weakest arguments from both sides.
(Our City Council candidate ratings are here: Position 9 ; Position 7; Position 5; Position 3 ; and Position 1.)
City of Seattle, Referendum 1
By this point, everyone has some opinion about the deep-bore tunnel, whether it's in favor, opposed, bemused, or indifferent. In literal terms, a "no" vote on the referendum won't stop the tunnel. Instead, it will determine whether the city council can give final notice to the state that tunnel work can proceed, or whether they have to pass a formal ordinance first (and that would potentially make the whole project subject to another referendum next time).
Leaving aside the literal interpretation of the measure, however, this referendum is proxy vote on the tunnel project. If you like the tunnel, vote "yes" for Ref. 1 ; if you oppose it, vote "no" against Ref. 1.
With that out of the way, here are what PubliCola believes are the most and least convincing arguments for and against the referendum.
Best argument for Ref 1 (and, by proxy, for the tunnel):
This vote is little more than a glorified opinion poll that will add costs and delays to a project that's already moving forward with a record-setting $2.8 billion state contribution. Seattle is addicted to process, and the tunnel vote will only add another layer on to a process that has lasted more than ten years now---dragging out the schedule for tunnel construction and increasing the likelihood of cost overruns.
Weakest argument for Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, weakest argument for the tunnel):
Proponents argue that there's no reason to worry about cost overruns---the state will take care of them when the time comes. Legislation saying that Seattle-area taxpayers will have to pay for any overruns is unenforceable, they argue. Given the state's dire revenue situation, and the legislature's historical hostility toward Seattle, we aren't convinced by those blithe reassurances.
Best argument against Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, against the tunnel):
We don't have the money. The Port of Seattle hasn't said how it plans to come up with its promised $300 million contribution, gas tax revenues are falling far short of expectations as people drive less, and it's far from clear that tolling will produce the $400 million the state is counting on. Even if the state legislature did come up with the money, budgeting is a zero-sum game: More money for the tunnel means less money for other priorities. At a time when the state is cutting back on the basic priorities of government, we can't afford an underfunded mega-project like the tunnel.
Weakest argument against Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, against the tunnel):
Opponents say the state's tolling numbers won't pencil out because people will simply avoid the tolled tunnel, choking downtown streets with 40,000 cars.
We see a contradiction in those alarmist predictions. Tunnel antagonists, who support a surface/transit option, argue that people are smart enough to adapt to changes in the road system, like the closure of the viaduct (and San Francisco's Embarcadero).
In fact, that's exactly the point progressive tunnel opponents such as Seattle City Council member Mike O'Brien have made in the past against building a tunnel that caters to cars. If that's their argument, though, shouldn't commuters also be smart enough to choose other alternatives to driving through the tunnel at rush hour besides sitting in traffic on gridlocked city streets?
Inspired by the even-keeled Seattle/King County Municipal League, which ranks candidates based on skill, experience, and policy acumen rather than on ideology, we’ve been talking to candidates and interviewing folks on both sides of the ballot measures and coming up with our own ratings .
For the ballot measures---namely, the veterans and human services levy and the tunnel referendum---we're identifying the best and weakest arguments from both sides.
(Our City Council candidate ratings are here: Position 9 ; Position 7; Position 5; Position 3 ; and Position 1.)
City of Seattle, Referendum 1
By this point, everyone has some opinion about the deep-bore tunnel, whether it's in favor, opposed, bemused, or indifferent. In literal terms, a "no" vote on the referendum won't stop the tunnel. Instead, it will determine whether the city council can give final notice to the state that tunnel work can proceed, or whether they have to pass a formal ordinance first (and that would potentially make the whole project subject to another referendum next time).
Leaving aside the literal interpretation of the measure, however, this referendum is proxy vote on the tunnel project. If you like the tunnel, vote "yes" for Ref. 1 ; if you oppose it, vote "no" against Ref. 1.
With that out of the way, here are what PubliCola believes are the most and least convincing arguments for and against the referendum.
Best argument for Ref 1 (and, by proxy, for the tunnel):
This vote is little more than a glorified opinion poll that will add costs and delays to a project that's already moving forward with a record-setting $2.8 billion state contribution. Seattle is addicted to process, and the tunnel vote will only add another layer on to a process that has lasted more than ten years now---dragging out the schedule for tunnel construction and increasing the likelihood of cost overruns.
Weakest argument for Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, weakest argument for the tunnel):
Proponents argue that there's no reason to worry about cost overruns---the state will take care of them when the time comes. Legislation saying that Seattle-area taxpayers will have to pay for any overruns is unenforceable, they argue. Given the state's dire revenue situation, and the legislature's historical hostility toward Seattle, we aren't convinced by those blithe reassurances.
Best argument against Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, against the tunnel):
We don't have the money. The Port of Seattle hasn't said how it plans to come up with its promised $300 million contribution, gas tax revenues are falling far short of expectations as people drive less, and it's far from clear that tolling will produce the $400 million the state is counting on. Even if the state legislature did come up with the money, budgeting is a zero-sum game: More money for the tunnel means less money for other priorities. At a time when the state is cutting back on the basic priorities of government, we can't afford an underfunded mega-project like the tunnel.
Weakest argument against Ref. 1 (and, by proxy, against the tunnel):
Opponents say the state's tolling numbers won't pencil out because people will simply avoid the tolled tunnel, choking downtown streets with 40,000 cars.
We see a contradiction in those alarmist predictions. Tunnel antagonists, who support a surface/transit option, argue that people are smart enough to adapt to changes in the road system, like the closure of the viaduct (and San Francisco's Embarcadero).
In fact, that's exactly the point progressive tunnel opponents such as Seattle City Council member Mike O'Brien have made in the past against building a tunnel that caters to cars. If that's their argument, though, shouldn't commuters also be smart enough to choose other alternatives to driving through the tunnel at rush hour besides sitting in traffic on gridlocked city streets?
