October 19, 5:39 PM 19
McGinn Statement on Council Tunnel Vote
Monday, the City Council unanimously authorized Mayor Greg Nickels to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Washington committing Seattle to the tunnel plan.
I disagree with the decision. I disagree with the timing.
But the reality is Mayor Nickels and the Council have entered into an agreement, and the City is now committed to the tunnel plan.
If I’m elected Mayor, although I disagree with this decision, it will be my job to uphold and execute this agreement. It is not the Mayor’s job to withhold the cooperation of city government in executing this agreement.
I will, however, continue to ask tough questions:
• We don’t know how much it’s actually going to cost.
• If it ends up costing more than the current budget allows, there is serious disagreement between Seattle and the State over who will pay the cost overruns.
• Where will the money come from, and who will bear the burden? Will we have to cut police, fire, library, or services for the poor?
I will not stop asking the tough questions nor will I ever stop standing up for Seattle’s interests in this process.
I’m worried the people that want the tunnel have a champagne appetite and the City has a beer budget. The question is who will end up paying the tab.
There is a clear choice in this election.
My opponent has refused to ask any hard questions about the tunnel.
In fact, when asked about the Legislature passing the cost overrun amendment, he said:
“If I were mayor, rather than taking potshots at Democratic leadership who put that (amendment) on, I’d express disappointment and say, “OK, we can live with this.”
SeattlePI.com - Chris Grygiel, 05/11/09
Seattle cannot live with paying the cost overruns on the tunnel.
Hmm.
What the #!$& happened?!
[...] Mike McGinn announced that he will not stand in the way of a waterfront tunnel project – but he will be watching it to [...]
Mike, you are a man of principle and I’m glad that you still believe that we should have first funded transit alternatives, strengthen and fix I-5 and fix the seawall.
My vote is for you to make Olympia and City Hall accountable.
Wow - changing positions already…. at least I am finding out before my ballot was cast. The fact that you didn’t know that if the Council and Mayor entered into an agreement that you would need to enforce it shows me that you don’t really understand what is required in the role. Also the whole discussion around how you commute vs. how Mallahan commutes is a joke - as Mayor, transportation is covered whether you like it or not. And quite honestly, we have bigger issues to worry about.
Also your commercials don’t really give me the warm and fuzzies around decisive action in emergency situations. Seems like you want to get everyone together for some hot cocoa and talk about it.
I’m glad you are tempering your stance. I am very worried about the uncertainties of this project, and I still think you are the only candidate who can save us from this disaster. Working with the Council is the way to go.
This is the first time I have visited McGinn’s site. I have logged on in hopes that I can understand his stance against the tunnel, because I support his other policies, and would like to vote for him. The first thing I notice is the video about SF’s Embarcadero. If this is meant to support the anti- tunnel argument, it clearly fails. Isn’t one reason to opt for a tunnel to reclaim the waterfront, as SF did? I have lived in Seattle for 10 years and spent many years living all over the SF, Oakland and North Bay areas. No comparison should be made with Seattle’s 99. The Embarcadero is not a critical thoroughfare. SF is a circle with many options to get from here to there. Seattle is a bottle neck. For those of us in West Seattle, the tunnel is critical for efficient transportation to key parts of the city. Clearly we recognize that it’s going to cost. Comparing the tunnel to champagne is completely insensitive. McGinn should pay attention to the NEEDS of the voters if he hopes to get elected.
Good grief. This was why I was going to vote for you. How can you do this and think you can get elected? Your main issue, for heaven’s sake. You goofed.
@jb, @mary — Until yesterday, the City wasn’t legally bound, and now we are. Mike is still 100% against the tunnel, but he acknowledged that the Mayor’s responsibility is to enact policy passed by the City Council. There are still a ton of questions surrounding the project — who pays cost overruns, what will the EIS reveal, what will the construction bids be — and Mike is the only candidate asking the tough questions. I’m sure he’ll never accept responsibility for cost overruns on a State highway, and I know he’ll fight to make sure our City’s interests are protected.
The Council is going to have to revisit this issue in the future and Mike will make his reservations known. But if the Council elects to go ahead with the tunnel option, (and the voters pass the required property tax increases), Mike will respect the will of the people. Which is what he’s said all along.
I’m against the tunnel, but I know Mike can’t go it alone without even a single Councilmember dissenting on the agreement.
Actually, I know that this project is hanging by a thread–I’d rather see it fail on its own so Mike doesn’t have to spend all his political capital on it.
I agree David. Mike McGinn is the only candidate qualified to be mayor, period. I want all of Mike’s other excellent agenda to get the attention it deserves.
Mike, you were totally on-point with the champagne vs. beer analogy.
I support you and am just about to vote. I think it was a smart mayoral move on you part. Vote McGinn!
I don’t like it, but at least McGinn is a person who can thoughtfully make a decision based on political realities. To stubbornly keep his stance to oppose the tunnel regardless of the Council vote would just be pig-headed. I’d rather have a mayor who has the guts to change his mind when necessary and risk the inevitable “flip-flop” attacks.
I’m glad to see he’s confronting political realities. The tunnel issue was THE thing that kept me from supporting McGinn. If politicians and their constituents continue to flip-flop nothing will get done…ever (e.g. monorail). It’s been examined, re-examined, voted on, studied, examined, voted. Let’s f’in just bite the bullet already. The idea of an ideal should not be the enemy of progress.
Soon to be Mayor Mike McGuinn.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your decision on the tunnel. I am proud of you for making this decision at such a delicate time in the game. Maybe it should have been reached sooner but it is what it is and I believe it was the right decision. It brought to mind this Ted Kennedy quote from his speech at the Democratic National Convention in New York City in 1980 :
“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die”
I will support you in getting those ballots in with the RIGHT vote.
Thanks.
Tamsen
Faced with a unilateral vote by the city council to start digging…I understand the mayor can not stand alone in opposition. Hopefully new members of city council will revisit the issue before too much “progress” is made. The EIS report itself will likely be fascinating and telling. The floodwall is a more pressing issue literally.
It’s laughable that some of these comments refer to pressures of “political realities” and “flip-flops”. The voters have never flip-flopped. In the special election 2 years ago, 70% said they did NOT want a tunnel. I am tired of government not listening. This was such a huge issue for me, that it was the ONLY issue which was deciding my vote. So I’m sorry Mr. McGinn, you just lost mine.
slghodson,
I’m not going to throw my vote away. I’m voting for Mike still, because yes - the backroom deal between Nickels and Gregoire (and whomever else was involved) was and is wrong. Mike is 100% right to not let the pre-election games they’re playing knock him off path.
Mike still opposes the tunnel and is currently the only electable candidate in the race who still does. If there is any way for we the people to stop this tunnel or get Seattle residents totally off the hook for the cost overruns then it’s with Mike as mayor.
I believe Mike is the better candidate to represent the wants and needs of the city in many ways. Mike’s past tunnel position has aggravated my voting for him. With a more reasonable approach on his stance to the tunnel he definitely has my vote.
Changing one’s stance in a situation does not necessarily make them a weaker person but one with an open mind.