Dates are now set for the next meetings of the Alaskan Way Viaduct/Seawall Replacement Project‘s South Portal and North Portal working groups. Those meetings will be the first since Mayor Mike McGinn announced last Thursday (WSB coverage here) that he will ask the City Council to approve a May special election to ask voters to pay $241 million in property taxes for faster-than-scheduled seawall repairs. (About $12 per $100,000 of property value, for each of 30 years; 60% voter approval required.) In the days since that announcement, we’ve collected reaction from 4 of the West Seattleites on the Viaduct/Seawall “working groups,” as well as from West Seattle-residing City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, who now chairs the Council’s Transportation Committee. Read on for what they have to say.

From Jerome O. Cohen, who represents the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce‘s board on the South Portal Working Group:

I certainly share the Mayor’s concern about the safety of the seawall. but I am very concerned about him proposing a special ballot and new property tax now, given that this issue is already being worked on by the state, county and city as part of the overall Alaskan Way Corridor Project. The seawall replacement was part of the plan and agreement worked out by Gov. Gregoire, Executive Sims and Mayor Nickels. The idea was that the Alaskan Way surface street and the Alaskan Way Viaduct would be open while the tunnel was being bored, helping to keep traffic moving and business disruption to a minimum. Only after the tunnel was opened would work start on demolishing the viaduct and replacing the seawall which would shut down that corridor.

If we start work on the seawall two years ahead of schedule, Alaskan Way downtown will be shut down. Because of the scope of seawall work there could very well be an impact on the use of the viaduct at the same time and we won’t have a tunnel to use yet.

We have a lot of pressing issues in the city and I am concerned that the Mayor has come out with a tax proposal for this particular one without fully considering its impact on other issues, especially given the fact that correction of the seawall problem is being worked on as part of the larger overall project.

Vlad Oustimovitch, another South Portal Working Group member who is also on the Fauntleroy Community Association board:

Regarding the seawall ballot announcement, I will say that although I am glad that Mayor McGinn recognizes the urgency in dealing with the unstable seawall along the downtown waterfront, I am concerned that his announcement came without consultation with City Council, which is very knowledgeable on this subject. By taking on this issue unilaterally, the Mayor has not tapped into what has been a very deliberate and well thought out process for dealing with this critical infrastructure issue. Ultimately that may be counterproductive to getting it resolved.

Pete Spalding, another South Portal Working Group member, involved with numerous community groups including leading the West Seattle Food Bank board:
I was surprised that this was the Mayor’s first big announcement since taking office. I am glad that he has chosen to move this discussion to a conclusion and hopefully moved it forward to a decision. Just like the viaduct discussion, the discussion surrounding the seawall has been going on for far too long. It seems once a decision is made on a topic then we can have the discussion to finalize that decision. Since the seawall is a separate project, it does not necessarily have to be tied to the viaduct project. It seems that all of the parties that are coming out with objections now have already voiced their points of view several times over the years. I for one applaud the mayor for making a decision and forcing the council and the voters to move forward with one of our major public safety hazards along the waterfront.

Chas Redmond, a West Seattleite on the Central Waterfront Working Group (officially representing Feet First):

It’s an interesting question. I’ve read Cary Moon’s dismissal of this approach and disagree with her views. I think McGinn is approaching this from the safety standpoint, from the standpoint of the city itself taking on work which everyone agrees is city work, and from the standpoint of actually getting things in order for the waterfront make-over. Whatever we do, we can’t begin until the seawall is in good shape. It’s in deplorable shape, as we’ve all become increasingly aware. Personally I think this is a good move.

The discussion of how to interface with the waters of Puget Sound is a good discussion, but the Aquarium managed to create a whole new reef with underwater features and a lively ecosystem in a two-year rebuild of their pier. Why should this be more complex just because it’s a much longer stretch. The city had already identified several areas of interest for marine ecosystems, other areas of interest for human interaction (as with the southern rocky beach along Myrtle Edwards Park’s path), and other areas for straight wharf functionality (as in keeping the existing piers and businesses intact).

McGinn’s smart, savvy and knows these things about the waterfront. Cary and others seem disappointed in a shortening of the classic Seattle approach. To me, the Mayor’s smart move-out on this important element of the overall waterfront rebuild is a sign that Seattle might actually achieve some of its vision in a faster timeframe than we’d previously thought possible.

As I said, I think this is a good move forward for the city and for anyone with a vision for the waterfront.

The City Council has to say yes before the measure can get on the ballot. So far, it’s no slam dunk. We talked over the weekend with Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, who is now in charge of the Transportation Committee:

My thoughts are that the seawall has to be replaced, no question about that. We have identified a variety of ways for doing it – bonding and possibly going to a vote for property taxes, but there are others as well – a local improvement district, transportation benefit district, others as well have been identified. The mayor’s proposing this (one) – but I think we have to look at not only the obligation to seawall, but there are many projects we said we would help pay for regarding the viaduct and waterfront and we have to look at them. It’s not wise to look at (this) in isolation … I told the mayor, I don’t think we can look at this in isolation, with all the other projects…. The mayor doesn’t want things to drag on, I don’t either. You set a schedule and you stick to it and make decisions by a certain date, I share that opinion.”

But when it comes to date, Rasmussen also told us, May may be too soon for a ballot measure – the August primary may be more realistic. Anything going to a vote in May, he said, would have to be finalized by late March; plus, he adds, “I have heard councilmembers express concerns about (the cost of a special election” – which he says would be a million dollars. Another concern Rasmussen has – “There are a number of things we might want to put before the voters in the next six years – a community center measure … the Seattle Center master plan is not funded … the Family and Education Levy is coming up in 2011 … I don’t think we can look at one measure in isolation like this … how many times can you go to the voters, how much debt do you want to take on, what’s the biggest priority?”

Addressing one more question – whether paying for the seawall should fall on all Seattle voters, or those with property on/close to the waterfront – Rasmussen says, “This is our waterfront. If we don’t make sure that it’s safe, I think the impact on the entire city would be very, very significant. … The seawall isn’t really an amenity; it’s fundamental for the safety and well-being of our city.”

Meantime, also expressing skepticism that a May election is possible, another Councilmember, Tim Burgess. He raised his questions and concerns on his website today (hat tip/Publicola).

The mentioned-earlier working-group meetings are both at 4 pm, Tuesday 1/26 for the North Portal Working Group at King County Labor Temple (map), Wednesday 1/27 for the South Portal Working Group at Puget Sound Regional Council‘s board room (map).