Governor Gregoire Made The Right Choice On Viaduct
Knock it off hypocrites!
The fact is, if she had decided to take it upon herself alone to decide a matter that's more a Seattle concern than anyone else's, she would have been lambasted for overstepping her authority and power.
If she had chosen in favor of a replacement viaduct, she would have pissed off one half of the people, and if she had decided on a tunnel she would have pissed off the other side.
Count me as one of those that thinks she made the correct decision, for the following reasons.
I think that most people, if cost was not an issue, would prefer a tunnel solution over a new, and larger viaduct. I believe Gregoire is one of those people.
However, cost is the issue, and we all reluctantly agree about that, including Gregoire.
The question is, can a long term argument be made that over time the cost for the cut and cover tunnel is not as bad as the long term cost of having built another structure that will need replacing 50 years from now? If the people can accept that argument, they might be convinced to back the more expensive to build tunnel option with the understanding it will provide greater long term value to Seattle.
We're a short term thinking bunch these days, so no one should expect we have such foresight, but who is Gregoire to take that option, that choice, away from the people who live and work in Washington's main metropolis?
So she's letting Mayor Nickels make his case to his city, and letting the people decide what they want. If they can be convinced the tunnel is the best choice, and can find a way to pay for the additional cost, then all the power to them. If they decide the new monster viaduct is the way to go, or cannot come up with the money to pay for the tunnel, then case closed.
In the meantime, I'd like to see the region recognize the benefit a tunnel solution brings to all of us. Many of us who don't live in Seattle work in Seattle, and a more beautiful waterfront is something not only Seattleites can appreciate. There needs to be a way that someone like myself can help to financially support such a project. So many times I have seen Seattleites, left to their own devices, squander a golden opportunity to change the city for the better. We saw the Monorail project fail because financing options were made inflexible, causing the payment period to stretch and cause a huge long term cost. The transportation and infrastructure choices Seattle makes can be, and are, enjoyed by those who live outside the city but travel to, through and within it regularly.
So let's see a real education of the people about the benefits of the tunnel and the reasons not to build a new monster viaduct. Mayor Nickels: get out there and do everything you can to convince the people the tunnel is the better option, and that funding will be there. Investigate all the options. This is your shot, no sitting back waiting for the votes to be cast. Get out there and do the hard work to demonstrate why Seattle will be best served by a tunnel option, and ask for us to help be a part of that.
Otherwise, we'll get what we deserve: a monstrosity of a roadway through the city's waterfront and the lost opportunity of a lifetime.
Posted at 12/21/2006 09:46:00 PM PT
Permanent Link
9 Comment(s):
I agree with your comments but when you say "So let's see a real education of the people about the benefits of the tunnel and the reasons not to build a new monster viaduct." you should also seek a real education of how the added cost of the tunnel will be paid for.
Without this vote, Mayor Nickels plan would likely have been pushed through. The campaign to "educate" Seattle voters will be financed as all other political campaigns are paid for around here, I believe.
Particle Man - That was implied. One of the benefits of the tunnel is the long term financial benefits.
Daniel, city taxes or with a wall of condos? Which will it be. Will those who will get rich foot most of the bill or will the Seattle voters be shocked years later when they get the bill?
We all benefit from the beautification of the city waterfront. I'm sure it will be a combination of many sources.
The notion that commercial entities should not profit is naive. However, the city should consider profiting as well from the improved situation, and that money should go toward paying for the upgrades.
You know Daniel, we do not agree on this issue but I respect your point of view and have not resorted to calling you naive.
If the taxpayers of Seattle are presented with facts and not spin in regard to construction costs and how they will be afforded by the city and its residents and they vote for the tunnel, then I would be happy with an immediate shift in planning and with moving forward without delay. If the project is used to generate "new real-estate" worth billions and the taxpayers are still going to get the bill, well the voters should be given this information. If the tunnel lid is going to become park, well that would be fantastic, but if this is just a pipe dream then it should be exposed prior to the vote.
PM - I'm not necessarily calling you personally naive. I do think however that the much of the opposition to a real estate boom borders on that. If the beautification happens of course property values will go up and property owners will benefit. But that includes those that own the public right of ways as well, i.e. the city. That's a boon to Seattle as a city, not just property owners.
BTW, take a look at the video of the tunnel scenario at http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y9FCZxwSbvY and you will see just how transformative it will be and how the lid at the north end will be available for park space that ties into Pike Place.
I undertand your desire to have a beautiful waterfront. I have a desire to live in a beautiful house. But, I can't afford it. So, I live in the modest little house I can still afford.
Naivete may be a matter of perspective. For many in this community who are trying desperately to stay in our homes, it is pragmatism rather than naivete which determines our thinking.
Of course, you might suggest we all move to Federal Way or Auburn or god only knows where people who are supplanted by the wealthier class move to.
If you want a tunnell, instead of decrying the up-or-down vote on it, why not devise a truly fair and just means for paying for it. I haven't walked the waterfront for ten years but I've certainly driven the viaduct and I enjoy the view each time I do.
Simple fact Gwen is that the tunnel, long term, is the better value solution. You still pay a mortgage when you buy a home because you can't afford to pay for it in full up front.
As for not walking the waterfront, who can blame you. That's the point, you should have made numerous trips to enjoy the Seattle waterfront in the past 10 years, but with the viaduct there it is not much of a place to visit. That's a huge waste of a rare asset.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link