The Fight Over the Tunnel Is Seattle at Its Worst
There's great political theater. And then there's the dreary sketch comedy unfolding in this city around the waterfront tunnel--with its endless indecision, avoidance, and weasely tactics. 
The latest passive-aggressive gambit comes from the city council, which decided on Monday to put off signing final tunnel agreements with the state. Or, as reported by Crosscut, with unintentional hilarity: "The council unveiled near-unanimous agreement on a plan to approve a resolution stating the city's intent to reach final agreements with the state next year." That's bold action by Seattle standards.
After a months-long campaign by Mayor McGinn, his consultants, and his supporters to stoke fears about "cost overruns"--with zero audible response from tunnel backers--it's no surprise that public support for the tunnel has started to shift and crack like a viaduct pillar, leaving the city council feeling anxious.
But while the council's delay makes a certain amount of sense--why not wait for bids to come in?-- it also communicates yet more mealy-mouthed uncertainty on an issue the city's been dithering about for a decade.
McGinn accuses the council of trying to undercut a possible public vote on the tunnel. By taking no action, the council offers referendum-seekers nothing to overturn--it's the perfect Seattle strategy!
And if that's the council's goal, it's at least a worthy one. Because of course, we've voted on replacing the viaduct before--twice. In 2007, during a previous act of this farce, we spent $1 million on a two-pronged ballot measure. The result: We said no to rebuilding the viaduct. And we said no by an even wider margin to the idea of a 4-lane "hybrid" tunnel.
There's little doubt that, if put to a public vote today, the deep-bore tunnel would be shot down too. In a situation of extreme uncertainty, where options have been debated to death, the price tag is big, and there's no obviously right way to proceed, people are just going to vote no. It's the easiest thing to do. It doesn't commit you to anything.
If we put the "surface option" on the ballot, asking whether we should dismantle the viaduct, choke I-5, and flood downtown with more cars, that too would likely be rejected.
There is no consensus about what to do on the waterfront. There wasn't ten years ago, there wasn't three years ago, and there isn't now. There's never going to be. Especially in the case of a state-owned roadway going through a divided city. That's why we elect politicians, to make the difficult decisions for us.
And unlike most of the stuff we vote on around here, we actually have to do something in this case. The current viaduct is a genuine catastrophe waiting to happen, and far more threatening than tunnel construction is ever going to be (even if it levels our building!). That's the drama underlying all this comedy.
Write Comment
Email to Friend
Print Article
