Morning Fizz
There is Now a Precedent
Caffeinated News & Gossip. Your daily Morning Fizz.
1. Erica broke some big news yesterday : The Washington State Department of Transportation, which initially predicted it would be able to raise $400 million in tunnel toll revenues to help pay for the project, now believes tolls will raise only $200 million, half the original projection.
2. WSDOT included a provision in its 520 bridge contract that all but ensured WSDOT would get an exemption from the state requirement that it halt bridge construction during any environmental appeal of the project under the state Shoreline Management Act, PubliCola has learned.[pullquote]"There is now a precedent from the legislature to come in and remove stays" imposed during appeals—Environmental Lobbyist Cliff Traisman[/pullquote]
As we reported last week, WSDOT is seeking a nearly unprecedented exemption from a provision in the Shoreline Management Act that stops all construction while projects are being appealed. Their argument is twofold: First, that they would have to violate their contract and stop construction, triggering millions in penalty payments to contractor Kiewit; and second, that delaying construction for the six months it would probably take to resolve the appeal would push the project into fish migration season, delaying the bridge an additional six months.
The contract WSDOT signed with Kiewit doesn't deal with this possibility directly. Instead, it stipulates that the state can delay the project for up to two months in the event of an environmental appeal---a red herring, given that appeals typically take at least six months. The penalty for going beyond that six months? $165 million in taxpayer dollars.
WSDOT deputy secretary David Dye says the agency "made a very conscious choice" to give any appellants a two-month window to finish their appeals. And he notes that in the agency's history, "we've only had one project sent back to the local authority" for review after an appeal. "We work really hard to make sure we have permits that succeed," Dye says.
Cliff Traisman, state lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters, argues that the exemption creates a dangerous precedent for other exemptions to Shoreline Management Act requirements in the future.
"This is is not about 520, it's about the fact that now you have a precedent, so that if and when you build the Columbia River Crossing [between Vancouver and Portland] or any other megaproject, there is now a precedent from the legislature to come in and remove stays" imposed during appeals, Traisman says.
3. Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner points out that Washington State AG (and GOP gubernatorial candidate) Rob McKenna has changed his MO when it comes to backing Republican Presidential candidates.
Back in 2008, when McKenna was running for AG, he was all in for John McCain. This year, McKenna is opting out of choosing. Smart guy.
Though watch this KING 5 interview from January when—asked the same question—McKenna cozied up to then-front runner Mitt Romney. Santorum? Not so much.
“I respect the fact that Rick has very strongly held views on social issues,” McKenna said. “I don’t think he’d be a majority candidate in our state, to say the least…”
4. Legislation that would have included improving state residents' health among the state's transportation goals (and, in a controversial twist, changed the goal of "mobility" for state residents to "reducing traffic congestion") died yesterday after failing to pass out of the state senate transportation committee.
Environmentalists supported the bill because it would have had the effect (without the "congestion relief" clause, anyway) of putting more emphasis on non-car transportation options in state transportation planning.
1. Erica broke some big news yesterday : The Washington State Department of Transportation, which initially predicted it would be able to raise $400 million in tunnel toll revenues to help pay for the project, now believes tolls will raise only $200 million, half the original projection.
2. WSDOT included a provision in its 520 bridge contract that all but ensured WSDOT would get an exemption from the state requirement that it halt bridge construction during any environmental appeal of the project under the state Shoreline Management Act, PubliCola has learned.[pullquote]"There is now a precedent from the legislature to come in and remove stays" imposed during appeals—Environmental Lobbyist Cliff Traisman[/pullquote]
As we reported last week, WSDOT is seeking a nearly unprecedented exemption from a provision in the Shoreline Management Act that stops all construction while projects are being appealed. Their argument is twofold: First, that they would have to violate their contract and stop construction, triggering millions in penalty payments to contractor Kiewit; and second, that delaying construction for the six months it would probably take to resolve the appeal would push the project into fish migration season, delaying the bridge an additional six months.
The contract WSDOT signed with Kiewit doesn't deal with this possibility directly. Instead, it stipulates that the state can delay the project for up to two months in the event of an environmental appeal---a red herring, given that appeals typically take at least six months. The penalty for going beyond that six months? $165 million in taxpayer dollars.
WSDOT deputy secretary David Dye says the agency "made a very conscious choice" to give any appellants a two-month window to finish their appeals. And he notes that in the agency's history, "we've only had one project sent back to the local authority" for review after an appeal. "We work really hard to make sure we have permits that succeed," Dye says.
Cliff Traisman, state lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters, argues that the exemption creates a dangerous precedent for other exemptions to Shoreline Management Act requirements in the future.
"This is is not about 520, it's about the fact that now you have a precedent, so that if and when you build the Columbia River Crossing [between Vancouver and Portland] or any other megaproject, there is now a precedent from the legislature to come in and remove stays" imposed during appeals, Traisman says.
3. Seattle Times reporter Jim Brunner points out that Washington State AG (and GOP gubernatorial candidate) Rob McKenna has changed his MO when it comes to backing Republican Presidential candidates.
Back in 2008, when McKenna was running for AG, he was all in for John McCain. This year, McKenna is opting out of choosing. Smart guy.
Though watch this KING 5 interview from January when—asked the same question—McKenna cozied up to then-front runner Mitt Romney. Santorum? Not so much.
“I respect the fact that Rick has very strongly held views on social issues,” McKenna said. “I don’t think he’d be a majority candidate in our state, to say the least…”
4. Legislation that would have included improving state residents' health among the state's transportation goals (and, in a controversial twist, changed the goal of "mobility" for state residents to "reducing traffic congestion") died yesterday after failing to pass out of the state senate transportation committee.
Environmentalists supported the bill because it would have had the effect (without the "congestion relief" clause, anyway) of putting more emphasis on non-car transportation options in state transportation planning.
