Personal Opinon: Referendum 1 Pitts Mayor Against City Council (2011)
There is something very odd going on with the tunnel process. There must be a steadfast rule of who can sign contracts. In other words, if it’s the Mayor’s job and he refuses to sign the agreement, then common sense would make one believe that there was something wrong with the agreement that the Mayor wanted cleared up.
Instead of getting with the Mayor to work it out legally, City Council President Richard Conlin signed it. Then, a petition to recall him was thrown out by a judge who said there was insufficient evidence that he broke the law. Us peons need to be educated on how a City Council member can sign an environmental impact statement and collude with City Attorney Pete Homes to bring a lawsuit to block a tunnel referendum and delaying placing Initiative 101 on the ballot is legal.
It appears Conlin exceeded his authority under the city charter by signing the environmental impact statement draft. The public now gets to vote on a referendum, which really means nothing. The anti-tunnel statement urges Seattleites to “stand up to the politicians” who, in 2009, cut risky and expensive backroom deals to pursue the tunnel project. The pro-tunnel statement says the debate is over and will only be prolonged by the Mayors, “delay and obstruction”. He has stood up for the wishes of the people, and knows there will be cost overruns and the city property owners will have to pay them.
City Council member Tim Burgess says a no vote will just make the city council pass another ordinance to go forward with the tunnel construction. If that were challenged, it would take a year to reach the ballot, and “BY THEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE TUNNEL WILL BE WELL UNDERWAY”. That should not happen.
It is all being done for big business and the labor community that writes big checks for their campaigns. Its all done against the will of the people paying for it. Referendum 1 should stop the whole project until they come up with the answers to these questions. Do the majority of the people want a tunnel? How is it going to be paid for? Who pays for the cost overruns? What tolls will they charge? They already know it will not help traffic.
People will avoid the thing even if there are no tolls. Can you imagine anything more stupid than a tunnel through an earthquake zone right by a decaying sea wall? If we challenge anything the city does, Pete Holmes takes it upon himself to file a lawsuit and gets a judge he probably plays golf with to rubber stamp it. Mayor McGinn is looked on as a troublemaker for the council members, but he is trying to follow the wishes of the people who elected him. As the anti tunnel people keep chipping away more shady stuff comes to the surface.
For a judge to say there is insufficient evidence he broke the law. Geez, what more evidence did he need? Either Conlin can sign agreements or the Mayor refuses to sign them. It’s a simple yes he can, or no he can’t. But he did, and they say our vote on the referendum will mean nothing. Why are we voting?
Update: So what happened with Referendum 1 and the Tunnel Project?
Referendum 1 in Seattle, related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel replacement project, was a significant vote that took place in the context of a broader debate about the best way to replace the aging and seismically vulnerable Viaduct. The tunnel project, officially known as the State Route 99 Tunnel, was approved by Seattle voters with a majority in favor during the August 16, 2011 ballot.
This approval was largely seen as a green light for the City Council to proceed with agreements critical to the tunnel’s construction and a reflection of the city’s desire to move forward after years of discussion and previous rejections of other options.
The project was notable for its ambition to create a tunnel that would maintain unobstructed traffic flow through downtown Seattle, while removing the elevated highway structure that had previously dominated the waterfront. Despite its approval, the tunnel project faced criticism and challenges, including concerns about cost overruns and the impact of tolling necessary to fund part of the project.
The completion of the tunnel was aimed at significantly altering the city’s traffic and urban landscape, prioritizing a solution that avoided long-term disruptions during construction and aimed at a more aesthetically pleasing waterfront.