Tunnel tussle: Referendum signatures turned in; city goes to court

Petition signatures have just been turned in at City Hall by the group Protect Seattle Now, seeking a public referendum vote this summer on the tunnel-related measures recently passed by the City Council, then vetoed by Mayor McGinn, whose veto was overturned by councilmembers. The group says they have almost 29,000 signatures; here’s their announcement, including a challenge to the mayor and council (2:10 PM UPDATE – responses from the council and city attorney, who is taking this whole thing to court, have been added, ahead):

Today the Protect Seattle Now coalition turns in 28,929 signatures, more than 10 percent of Seattle’s voters, to submit to the people a referendum overturning the City’s agreements to go forward with the controversial deep bore tunnel. The coalition expects that Seattle’s elected officials will uphold the democratic process as directed in the City Charter and place this referendum on the ballot.

Yesterday the campaign asked the Mayor, the City Council and the City Attorney to pledge by 5 p.m. today that they will place this referendum on the ballot and not silence the voice of the people of Seattle. To date, Mayor Mike McGinn and Councilmember Mike O’Brien have pledged to allow the people of Seattle to have a vote on this risky and expensive project. Councilmember Burgess responded stating, “The Charter is very clear that if sufficient voter signatures are verified the Council will place the measure on the next election ballot, which would be August. I’m confident we will follow the law.” Councilmember Bagshaw stated to the Seattle Times that she opposes a vote of the public. The campaign has not heard from Councilmembers Clark, Licata, Conlin, Harrell, Godden, Rasmussen or City Attorney Pete Holmes.

A recent Elway Poll found that 55 percent of Seattle voters want the referendum to be placed on the ballot.

Protect Seattle Now was organized after the City Council voted last month to override the mayor’s veto of a City ordinance related to the construction of the deep bore tunnel under Alaskan Way. Coalition members point out that the tunnel project, which is not fully funded, runs the risk of significant cost overruns that state law mandates Seattle taxpayers alone would have to pay. An Oxford University study found that 90 percent of megaprojects like the deep bore tunnel experience cost overruns, usually around 30 percent of the project cost. Both the City of Seattle and the State of Washington are dealing with budget deficits that have forced cuts to public services, raising questions about whether taxpayers can afford to pay cost overruns on the project.

ADDED 2:10 PM: Much has happened in the ensuing honors. City Attorney Pete Holmes has announced court action to determine whether the city ordinances in question are subject to referendum at all – here are details on what he has done. Meantime, eight City Councilmembers (excluding Mike O’Brien) have issued a statement saying, more or less, no comment while referendum signatures are verified and Holmes’ action works its way through court.

ADDED 2:27 PM: Protect Seattle Now issued a one-line response to Holmes’ court action: “The Protect Seattle Now campaign would like to know who asked City Attorney Pete Holmes to sue the people and silence the voice of 29,929 voters.”

Alki Area March 29, 2011 (10:44 am)

Huh? You’re going to stop a billion dollar state/city project because you have 29,000 people that don’t like it? I can get 29,000 signatures for anything, for a “I hate puppies” initiative. In a city of hundreds of thousands, millions in the area, that doesn’t represent much of anything. Yawn!

No MATTER WHAT we do…tunnel, surface, cut & cover, replace…roughly 250,000 folks won’t agree with it. There IS no specific overwhelming agreement on what to do, that’s the problem. If we wait for 60%-70% of the folks to agree on ONE solution, we’ll never do anything here.

This is a bold risky project. But I like it. I would have preferred (personally) a simple cut & cover ditch/tunnel on the waterfront, done in conjunction with the seawall replacement (which STILL has to be done)….but that has the ‘con’ argument of having to tear down the viaduct and not have a replacement route ready for 5+ years (all the traffic on I-5/other during that time). The tunnel can at least be done WHILE the viaduct stays up. Eh. Maybe we should flip a coin?

JoB March 29, 2011 (11:09 am)

i hope the council stands firm.
the last thing we need now is to further politicize this issue with a vote.
i don’t believe they will.
but i still have hope…

I agree that this isn’t the best solution.. but Seattle voters were talked into voting down any version of the best solution and what we are left with is the result.. a deep bore tunnel…

There is a facebook video circulating where people sign to repeal their first amendment rights because some signature collector tells them it is time to take back their country…

Isn’t it time we stopped governing by politically manipulated opinion polls and started solving some of our city’s transportation problems before gridlock stalls growth?

Genesee Hill March 29, 2011 (11:26 am)

This burns me.

CandrewB March 29, 2011 (11:43 am)

I wonder how many people who signed realize the Viaduct is coming down regardless and the other option is nothing.

WS commuter March 29, 2011 (1:12 pm)

That’s the problem (CandrewB) … the public mostly doesn’t understand the issue. So some people think that stopping the DBT would mean saving the viaduct … others want to stop the DBT and the viaduct and go the McGinn way on buses and bikes.

However, it would appear that the tunnel will proceed (thankfully) in spite of this. Court challenges will delay this petition, and ultimately, the most it can do is bind the City – it can’t stop the DBT.

Just build it, already.

westie March 29, 2011 (2:03 pm)

@ Alki Area
Ditto.
Let’s gitr done already! I’m no traffic/road specialist. Let’s let the experts build our roads. No more back and forth. Bye, bye viaduct…it’s already coming down people.

wsone March 29, 2011 (2:33 pm)

Yeah, let’s move on. Tell the 29,000 whiners and sore losers to get a life. McGinn should be recalled for obstructing the tunnel, which wasn’t my first choice, but let’s get going.

Citizen March 29, 2011 (4:03 pm)

We are spending/spent a ton of money studying the situation and currently preparing to proceed. Whatever is built will cost more money the longer this subject gets tossed about. We NEED transportation improvements – move aside ‘nay sayers’ and let the folks that have solutions go forward with the work!

Michael March 29, 2011 (4:29 pm)

They had better closely verify those signatures: when I looked the petitions they left alone on the street corner at the Junction had a number of fake names and addresses on them. (No, I didn’t sign it, what am I, an idiot?)
.
Oh, and this “he’s suing the PEEEEE-OPLE!” crap oozes self-importance from this group that pretends to represent us. No, dude, Pete Holmes is suing YOU.

cj March 29, 2011 (4:34 pm)

I seem to recall voting down the tunnel twice. That is we have voted on it more than once before and said no both times. Did that stop the counsel from sucking public money from needed agencies to lay out this cake for contractor project? No.

I would have signed it too if I knew about it. I dont think it will do anything but delay it though. We will have the tunnel, they will eventually tax you for expanding cost and perhaps even toll it, and it will likely be the scene of horrendous accidents and natural events that were not accounted for in the design. Good times ahead.

WharfratPete March 29, 2011 (6:52 pm)

Having lived here all 54 years of my life I have see the politics of this city and county I have washed my hands and have moved on. I blame ex-mayor Nickels for this mess. It not just him but most politicians who sell out not only the citizens of Seattle but this State. Ever since the No vote on Safeco Field to this mess they have manipulating the voting process to get what their campaign donors want. I will be retiring before the “Nickels Tunnel” will be completed and will be moving out of the area. for you that are in denial I hope the project goes over budget (which it will) and you see what has been going on for decades. Good luck, you will need it. :)

Mike C March 29, 2011 (7:02 pm)

For love of God start digging now. I would hate to see how many people it takes to make a sandwich in Seattle, let alone what it would cost. Poor leadership that gets an A+ in wasting money. Mike McGinn’s little court date is is going to cost tens of millions of dollars.Talk about backwards, just start digging…maybe in the end Seattle will be known for vision rather than indecisiveness.

And can someone text the Wizard and ask him to give Mike McGinn a brain. This is the Emerald City after all. Idiots included.

Carter March 29, 2011 (8:26 pm)

I have always bern against the ridiculous, if not undersized tunnel. A bridge across Elliot Bay has always been the way to go. It’s much cheaper, can be built while the viaduct is in use, and many of the world’s greatest cities celebrate them with pride. And today a bridge can have a stealth-like appearance. Wake up Seattle, we can’t afford the tunnel!

one voice March 29, 2011 (9:30 pm)

Yes! Let’s put a tunnel in an area that is high risk for a tsunami. Our loved ones will fare much better trapped in their cars in a flooded tunnel than they would on an elevated road…

Roger March 29, 2011 (9:32 pm)

@WrP- good luck to you in your retirement and may you find the peace you need in your future home…
bitter much?

@Carter- seriously? where exactly do you propose a bridge?

Yes, I am pro-tunnel. Just do it, already!

redblack March 29, 2011 (9:35 pm)

That’s the problem (CandrewB) … the public mostly doesn’t understand the issue.

.
for once, we agree. the public doesn’t understand the issue. if they did, they would be more adamantly opposed to DBT.
.
if anyone thinks that keeping the central waterfront mile of the viaduct open for another 5 years – with restricted access/exit – is going to keep traffic moving while the tunnel is built, i have a viaduct to sell you.
.
and if you don’t think seattle property owners will be picking up costs after the $400 million state-defined toll limit is reached, you’re delusional.
.
there are better ways, and the only doomsayers around here are tunnel advocates publicly rending their garments over “obstructionism.”

KBear March 29, 2011 (9:46 pm)

“For love of God start digging now. I would hate to see how many people it takes to make a sandwich in Seattle, let alone what it would cost.”

DON’T YOU DARE START MAKING A SANDWICH WITHOUT PUTTING IT TO A PUBLIC VOTE, YOU EVIL CORPORATE BICYCLE-HATING NAZI!!!!!

Rw11 March 29, 2011 (10:56 pm)

I wonder why the majority of the Seattle City Counsel is so pro-tunnel? They are pro-tunnel enough to not care about the almost 29,000 people who signed this referendum that want to vote on the tunnel project. I’m sure they will pull the same stunt with the I-101 petition, in which 28,000 people also signed that measure. So here you potentially have thousands of Seattle voters that want the right to vote, denied that right. Please remember the actions and decision of the Seattle City Counsel members when its time to vote for their re-election in August. Don’t forget how hard they are trying to silence you, and take away your right to vote on a project that “YOU” are paying for. This is very interesting. It sure makes you wonder, what are they gaining if the tunnel is built?

Blue Collar Enviro March 30, 2011 (4:59 am)

If people were more informed about the tunnel, WSDOT would have had to come forward with an explanation what they are going to do with the other 70-80,000 trips that currently use the viaduct daily, and won’t be using the tunnel.

And the governor would be having to explain why she vetoed the other part of the tunnel deal — the part where half a billion is spent on downtown *transit* infrastructure, in order for more *people* to be able to get in and out of downtown. For half a billion, I bet the new transit would have carried more people than the tunnel.

Unfortunately, the governor vetoed the transit portion of the tunnel plan. And you wonder why transit advocates are up in arms about what the state is doing?

Blue Collar Enviro March 30, 2011 (5:01 am)

I see the Chamber’s rent-a-trolls have hit this blog, too.

CandrewB March 30, 2011 (5:54 am)

Pete, I hope you retire to a location where big construction projects are not only not a big deal, but are considered progress. Hopefully then your myopia will clear up.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 30, 2011 (8:15 am)

CJ…

We did not vote on the tunnel twice. There was one advisory vote that offered three options;
1) retrofit/repair the viaduct
2) remove the viaduct and go with surface streets
3) a cut-and-cover tunnel.
All three failed to receive a 50%+ result which made the vote worthless.
Of the three, the surface street option received the least votes and continues to receive the least support of ANY AWV options.

BCE…
The current trips on the AWV are estimated to be 110,000 per day. Of those trips approx 40,000-45,000 do not travel the whole viaduct and get off downtown. The DBT is projected to carry approx 70,000 trips per day. The rest will funneled on to the upgraded surface streets through the waterfront and 1st ave.

I don’t support the DBT, but it burns me when people who are against it don’t use accurate information when speaking out about it.

1. THERE WAS NEVER A VOTE ON THE DEEP BORE TUNNEL OPTION – IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE “CUT-and-COVER” OPTION THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT A FEW YEARS AGO
2. When looking at the AWV car trips you CANNOT ignore the amount of trips that use it and get off at Seneca or Western (that is the exit that should remain…not Seneca).
3. The DBT will be what 99 was intended to be…a BYPASS of the city and I-5.

I use the AWV EVERYDAY north and south bound going to and coming home from work. I am SICK AND TIRED of hearing about this. It has been 10 YEARS since the earthquake and we have still done NOTHING about it but spend tax dollars on study after study after study after petition after petition after election…etc.

The lack of leadership in this matter is appalling and disgusting. This should have been taken care of within the first 3 years after the earthquake and we should be traveling on either a new viaduct or a tunnel.

The phrase “S**T or get off the Pot” fits in this situation.
But hey…after seeing the type of people we elect to fill our leadership positions…I can see why we are in this quagmire right now.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 30, 2011 (8:21 am)

RW11…

What is the population of Seattle right now 350,000? if not higher. That is less than 7% of the people and I’m willing to bet that after all the names have been vetted the total of verified signatures will be closer to 20,000 than 29,000.

Now if they turned in a total of 100,000 verified signatures I would be in full support of this, but again this should have been happening 7-10 years ago….not TODAY.

DW March 30, 2011 (8:37 am)

There’s no plan for anything else if DBT goes away. People who think so are pie in the sky dreamer who are favoring some kind of dreamworld over what’s practical and doable.

The decision has been made. Deal with it.

Carter March 30, 2011 (8:38 am)

Roger:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002596677_viaduct01m.html

The biggest problem with your little tunnel is just that – it’s too little. Four lanes? Get serious. And what fun it would be to be in that tunnel during an earthquake. Have you heard of liquefaction?

Gatewooder March 30, 2011 (8:39 am)

Infrastructure takes many years to get completed. Initiatives like this prevent anything getting done in this city. Sad.

ale March 30, 2011 (8:59 am)

I’m with Carter. It’s not the DBT that I don’t like, it’s the fact that it will have a smaller capacity than the current viaduct. I understand the desire to force people into other other modes of transport such as buses and carpools, but for the love of pete, put those infrastructures in place first! Reducing the capacity is what I’m most upset about. At least make it the same capacity as the existing viaduct.

KBear March 30, 2011 (9:10 am)

“The biggest problem with your little tunnel is just that – it’s too little.”

Does that mean you’d rather have nothing? It’s not cost-effective to build a larger tunnel, or repair/rebuild the viaduct. So those are your choices: tunnel or nothing.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 30, 2011 (9:48 am)

Carter,

Liquidation occurs in fill material. Like the SODO down to Georgetown area. The DBT will be in bedrock the majority of its length. The ONLY part that has any chance to suffer from that effect is the south end of the tunnel, and there ways to mitigate that.

ale..

You hit the nail on the head with the capacity issue. But I can not abide by “them” trying to force me into mass transit/bike/carpools..etc. This is America and not a socialist country where freedoms are controlled.

WS commuter March 30, 2011 (10:13 am)

KBear and E-WR beat me to the punch mostly (great comments). The tunnel – a tube shaped structure – is one of the safest places one can be in an earthquake. There is no tsunami risk ala the tragedy in Japan … even if we have a 9.0 on the Cascade subduction zone out off the coast, it cannot generate those kinds of tsunamis into central Puget Sound due to topography. This is a false worry.

We have 3 choices; none of them is perfect. Rebuilding the viaduct is almost the same cost as the tunnel and we end up with a seismically vulnerable structure (there’s your liquifiable soils concern!) and the negative side result of a structure 50% larger than the current viaduct (b/c it has to be built to modern highway standards). The surface street/transit option is a delusion for McGinn and those who are anti-car. A nice fantasy, but if adopted, it would cripple our transportation system and likewise cripple our economy. For all the folks claiming that we shouldn’t build a tunnel because many will avoid the tolls and flood our city streets, what exactly, do you think will happen if we go with the “green” alternative? Please, deal in reality. So finally we are left with the tunnel – same through capacity as the current Battery St. tunnel – 2 lanes each way – and yes, I lose my Seneca St. exit, so I’ll have to go in on side streets. But we keep a through highway that the city and region needs, because I-5 is never going to be widened through downtown, notwithstanding McGinn’s foolish delusions. The tunnel is the only sensible alternative, and as a bonus, we get to revitalize our entire central waterfront.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 30, 2011 (10:24 am)

Why hasn’t the city/county/state looked at, instead of tolls and taxing EVERYONE, instead make up the funds from the increased (vastly increased BTW) property values along the current route of the viaduct.
Just a thought

pitstop March 30, 2011 (11:33 am)

Notice while we speak they’re driving giant pilings on the sw side of 99? The ground must be stable enough? Why couldn’t they install new supports along the old ones and attach the current structure. Kinda like how they replace electrical poles. WS com, “false worry”, the NOAA study shows the south portal under 1.5-6.5 feet of water and the path of least resistence is down.http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/wals2794/wals2794.pdf

DW March 30, 2011 (11:50 am)

Great point by ale. If we invested in a world class transit system, I think you’d see a lot of people use it. Instead, McGinn and other urban greens are on a constant campaign to “force people out of their cars” because it is “morally right”

JM March 30, 2011 (12:34 pm)

Getting pretty tired of the “we haven’t had our say” crowd on this issue because the end result was not what they wanted. Last vote had 3 options, none of which carried a resounding majority. We gave consensus its due, & now it’s time to move forward. Actually, we’re behind on moving forward, thanks, in part, to nonsense such as this. Just because you didn’t get your way doesn’t mean you didn’t have your say… so get out of the way.

Ex-Westwood Resident March 30, 2011 (12:35 pm)

DW,
We had that opportunity in 1969 but the city turned it away. Atlanta got the federally funded and supported transit system that Seattle passed upon.

W March 30, 2011 (12:52 pm)

Although I sympathize with those lamenting the “10 year” delay in decisions – I would like to point out that this vulnerability has actually been obvious for TWENTY-TWO YEARS since the 1989 quake in SF.
so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cypress_collapsed.jpg
Everyone who’d like to discuss it just a little longer…
I’d like to invite you to a PANCAKE breakfast.

KBear March 30, 2011 (1:22 pm)

“I’d like to invite you to a PANCAKE breakfast.”
.
Why haven’t you considered WAFFLES?

KBear March 30, 2011 (1:22 pm)

“I’d like to invite you to a PANCAKE breakfast.”
.
Why haven’t you considered WAFFLES?

Les March 30, 2011 (5:16 pm)

The tunnel will bankrupt Seattle; statistics all bear this out.

Locally, overruns have affected a tunnel under Beacon Hill for light rail (30 percent over budget), the Brightwater sewage tunnel in east King County (24 percent and counting), and the downtown transit tunnel (56 percent over budget). If the deep-bore tunnel were to run a realistic 30 percent over budget—the tunnel itself is $1.96 billion, other costs are for associated expenses—that could create cost overruns to the tune of $580 million. According to the city’s tentative agreement with the state, passed by the city council, Seattle agrees to a state law passed last year. It says any costs exceeding the state’s commitment “shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area.” If the state’s end of the tunnel goes over budget and Seattle has to find the money to cover the cost overruns. The city’s taxpayers could face a $1 billion bill.

Megaprojects of this scale are historically risky and expensive, prone to massive cost overruns. According to an authoritative analysis of 258 massive transportation projects by one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject, Bent Flyvbjerg, a Danish professor at the University of Oxford, 9 out of 10 transportation megaprojects run over their estimates. For tunnel and bridge projects, Flyvbjerg found, “actual costs are on average 34 percent higher than estimated costs.”

When it comes to projects like this, things going wrong—things that lead to massive cost overruns—are the rule, not the exception.

My geology professor says that trying to build a tunnel as planned is a very bad idea. It’s unsafe.

Because we’re dealing with loose soil, there is a chance that the ground could cave in behind the tunneling machine. It can and does happen.

The numbers for the tunnel—once it’s completed—don’t look very good. The current Alaskan Way Viaduct carries about 110,000 cars a day. Once the tunnel opens in 2015, the number of cars using Highway 99 through downtown Seattle will drop to 46,000 cars a day, according to a tolling study by the state. That means 64,000 additional vehicles a day will be forced onto downtown surface roads, along the waterfront, and onto I-5. Cars that want to go downtown can’t use the tunnel because it will have no downtown exits. And people who don’t want to pay the toll won’t use it. During peak hours, the trip will be $4 one way and $3.50 the other. That’s $7.50 to use the tunnel. Many of the cars diverted from Highway 99 will pour into Pioneer Square instead, further clogging that neighborhood’s already traffic-clogged streets.

Because of this and more, let’s fix and refit the viaduct.

1) retrofit/repair the viaduct

Bounce March 30, 2011 (5:48 pm)

The number of signatures on the petition is indicative (not inclusive) of popular opposition to the DBT. I was asked to sign one anti-tunnel petition; but I didn’t, because the language indicated a ban on all tunnels—not merely financially negligent and logistically outrageous ones. That said, I believe the DBT is a terrible plan, and I’d vote against it given any opportunity. So, as the Elway Poll indicated, would many others—many more than the 29k on the petition.
–
I’ll also submit that opposition to the DBT is not, as some here would have it, a case of either waffling or pouting. Opposition to the tunnel is justified on so many grounds. But even irrespective of any arguments, it is simply responsible for people to say that we do not want to be frog-marched by the Council into potential calamity. The DBT has not been up for a vote.
–
Of course, if it did come up for a vote, we could talk about how it would be inflexible and too small for even current traffic volumes, how it would bypass the downtown core and increase congestion on surface roads, and how it would leave the critically unstable Viaduct up for at least five more years. We could also discuss other proposed solutions that would accomplish these same miserable effects more quickly and with less risk of massive cost overruns due to inflation, delay, and scope creep. And we might even consider few less-than-miserable solutions.
–
Given the stakes (for those of us who don’t stand to make money on the DBT), why would anyone NOT want a voice in this decision?

Carter March 30, 2011 (6:48 pm)

Les, couldn’t have said it better . . .

DW March 30, 2011 (7:38 pm)

Les/Bounce –

None of that matters. Seattle is not going to get any funding for any of the other options. The decision has been made.

Bounce March 31, 2011 (12:08 am)

What do you mean, “get” funding, DW? According to WSDOT, Federal funds (the only non-Washington source cited) would kick in only about 1/10 of the total projected costs. Those federal funds were earmarked in 2005, before the DBT plan was adopted. Presumably, they could be reallocated to any Viaduct replacement project. Within the State, city, etc. lawmakers already have the power to reallocate.

Bounce March 31, 2011 (12:09 am)

Michael March 31, 2011 (3:07 pm)

I find it amusing that the no-viaduct committee have found the WSB. My note to them:
.
You will not win minds in West Seattle for a surface-street-only plan, which is what Mayor McGinn’s no-tunnel campaign is.
.
The tunnel, as you say, will be plenty of disconnect from the rest of Seattle – the surface-street plan would be MUCH worse. (“Hey, I’d like to go to Bumbershoot.” “Honey, are you INSANE? That’s at least a half-hour drive or hour on the bus. Let’s go to Bellevue Square instead, it’s quicker.”)
.
No one complaining about the capacity of a tunnel should want this to be killed – the alternative is gridlock all the way through town.
.
And with no alternative rapid or even semi-rapid transit in the foreseeable future, we will simply be Stuck in West Seattle.
.
Again, call the no-tunnel campaign what it is: a plan to deter drivers, which for West Seattle is in effect a plan to stop travel and commuting.
.
Our businesses in particular should be lobbying HARD to avoid the surface-street plan, because it will mean money out of their pocket, and bread off the table.

Bounce March 31, 2011 (7:35 pm)

Erm, want some milk with that straw, man? Even the anti-tunnel posts here aren’t pushing McGinn’s plan.
–
Not to say they don’t have consistent themes: 1) the tunnel is intrinsically bad; 2) the tunnel will create more problems than it solves; and 3) the tunnel should be subject to democratic process; 4) the tunnel is dangerous.
–
And, actually…for the sake of comparison, the themes in the pro-tunnel posts are: 1) anti-tunnel people would argue with a stump; 2) average people are too inexpert to make good decisions; 3) it’s a done deal; 4) the only alternative is surface streets/there is no alternative.
–
I think it’s interesting that the pro-tunnel arguments here are really just anti-no-tunnel arguments—and, since #3 and #4 are demonstrably untrue, that those anti-no-tunnel-arguments are more about defamation than defense.

Mike C March 31, 2011 (10:08 pm)

Gov. Chris Gregoire announced Thursday that the state will help the Seattle city attorney prevent an anti-tunnel referendum from reaching the ballot.

“We have a valid and enforceable contract and we will enforce that contract,” she said. “Had [Seattle City Attorney] Peter Holmes not brought the action, we would have brought the action.”

Gregoire made the comments at a news conference that included state legislators and officials from King County, the city of Seattle and the Port of Seattle. “We stand here united, on track and on budget, and we intend to stay united.”

She also attacked the idea that state and local leaders were making decisions about the tunnel without public input, and warned that million of dollars would be lost by delay if a referendum moves forward.

Can you tell that some elected officials feel that a particular mayor is really dumb? I want to sign a petition for the Mayor to change his name to Mike McDimm. The guys kind of a loser.
Well I stand corrected, the Mayors a total loser.

WSB March 31, 2011 (10:18 pm)

Yes, there was another round of tunnel tussling today – putting it all together for one roundup shortly.

Michael April 1, 2011 (3:05 pm)

Sorry, Bounce, too smart to buy your line.
.
Unless you’re advocating more study and thinking and making REALLY sure we do SOMETHING else just as long as it’s not a tunnel.
.
Then you’re sounding more like the Seattle obstructionists I’ve come to know. Who cares what the question is when you can just make “no” the answer, right?