The concern that Seattle taxpayers will bear the risk of construction cost over-runs for the proposed deep-bore tunnel project has been at the center of the tunnel debate since the State passed legislation last May and has continued vigorously into the current mayoral race. In the legislation, some Representatives including viaduct-replacement advocate Frank Chopp, at the last minute, added a proviso that “Seattle property owners that will benefit from the tunnel shall bear the burden of any cost over-runs.” Anti-tunnel advocates (including mayoral candidate Mike McGinn) have pointed to that provision as a significant part of the risk Seattle taxpayers face if the tunnel project proceeds. That risk is a myth.
Simply put, several provisions of the Washington State Constitution seem clearly to prohibit the State from imposing a local tax on property owners
Art. VII, Sec. 1 provides: “All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.” If the State imposed a tax it would have to be uniform on all property owners throughout the state. The State cannot enact a special tax on a small class of taxpayers.
Consistent with that provision, Art. XI, Sec. 12 provides: “The legislature shall have no power to impose taxes upon counties, cities, towns or other municipal corporations, or upon the inhabitants or property thereof, for county, city, town, or other municipal purposes. . . .” In short, the State cannot impose a tax on local taxpayers.
Finally, Art. VII, sec. 9 of the Constitution authorizes local tax assessments to make local improvements, but the tax has to be levied by the city not the State: “The legislature may vest the corporate authorities of cities, towns and villages with power to make local improvements by special assessment, or by special taxation of property benefited.” Under the State Constitutional structure only a local entity such as the City of Seattle could impose a tax applicable only to local property owners.
Indeed, the State has enacted a statutory scheme for local entities such as the cities to impose such local assessments by ordinance and further provided that the ordinance may be restrained by a petition signed by owners of 60 percent of the taxes to be imposed. The City and the property owners to be taxed have the only say on whether they will be locally tax for the benefits provided by a tunnel. The State does not.
Well, you might ask, who will bear that risk? The State legislation puts a cap on spending for the tunnel project with no provision for expenditures above that cap. The issue of cost overruns on a public construction project is a matter that the agency charged with constructing the project and the private contractor who wins the bid for the project negotiate. So who will be in charge of constructing the tunnel? The tunnel is part of a state highway system, so the State will be the responsible for constructing the tunnel. Thus, the State (not the City, and not select City property owners) will negotiate and sign the contracts for construction of the tunnel and those contracts will allocate the risk of cost over-runs between the State and the contractor. Moreover, it is often the case that costs over-runs are attributable to unanticipated conditions or changes in design that are outside the scope of the contract and become the responsibility of the contracting agency (the State).
Of course, the City can elect in the future to impose a local tax on the property owners benefited by the tunnel to pay for cost overruns. And the City could contract with the State to pay for cost overruns. But the State cannot impose that result without the City’s consent.
Tweet
Thanks LawNerd for educating us!
Well argued, very lawyerly. But this entirely misses the point. If Seattle has to go to court to throw out the unsupportable clause putting cost overruns on the City, then the public only sees Seattle v. the rest of the state, with Seattle going to court to shirk the legal responsibility its own legislative delegation assumed.
To you it might seem a legal question, but in the end it will be a political question. And by letting this horrible clause become law – even if it won’t stand up in court – we have set the stage for even greater anti-seattle resentment elsewhere in the county and state.
Nice work, Seattle delegation.
Yeah-but it’s a little late for that truth to put it’s boots on, isn’t it?
Then why isn’t B & O tax illegal?
Yeah, even if they can’t legally impose a tax to make us pay for it, there still seem to be issues with them expecting us to pay for it, especially in the public opinion realm. Or bullying the city into paying for it because the city can impose that tax?
@2: Agreed. The State won’t impose the tax. The City of Seattle will. Case closed.
There are too many Seattle-based elected and soon-to-be elected officials who have now wrapped their reputations and political destinies on the success of the tunnel. They will *push* for Seattle to pick up the tab, not fight it. They’ll say it’s for the waterfront, for industry, for West Seattle, for the children, etc…
They will claim you want or will cause an elevated if you fight the tunnel tax.
Funny, we were just batting this question of enforceability back and forth a little on that four-letter blog over yonder.
Your analysis helps me see why Conlin (I just read) thinks the legislature could be persuaded to remove the enforceability clause during the next session.
Though some commenters here seem to assume there would have to be some kind of litigation to defend the City, my layman’s read of this suggests there’d be no legal basis for anybody to sue, and that if anyone did draft a bill to formalize a tax on Seattle the fatal constitutional flaws would guarantee it a quick death in committee. Is that right? And I can’t think any Seattle official would be so suicidal as to propose we should pay it just because the amendment suggests so. (Ironically, candidate McGinn is the only person close to office who has taken that position.)
And I do respect your need for anonymity, so wonder if you know of any neutral and respected state-constitutional expert who might be able to step up and lend his or her name to an analysis such as this.
Anyway, thanks. I’d been hoping something might come along to start replacing the heat on this issue with some kinda light. Since I’m pretty sure neither candidate will be a good mayor, it’s a relief to think this could be one less thing the winner will have available to bungle.
I just realized today that the only difference between the PWC/Sierra Club’s surface option and the tunnel hybrid is that the tunnel will actually replace the state-highway bypass that’s torn out, whereas the PWC/SC option wouldn’t replace the state highway.
Anti-tunnel advocates appear to imply that going tunnel will remove the ability to build out the waterfront and connect it with Downtown… when either way that’s going to happen.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202009/5768-S.SL.pdf
Section 6. (b), on page 4 of 5 is where the mistake in the law was made.
I have thumbed through a few bills, not too many, and what I have seen is a classification made, and then those people are taxed (counties with population over 1.5 million, west of the Cascade Mountains blah, blah, blah, Convention Center, blah, blah.)
The 1.8-ish in gas tax is to pay for it and tolling ravenue. The tunnel toll is to cover anticipated costs above, unanticipated, not more than 400 million.
So, there is already the ability to toll the tunnel for the tunnel cost overruns to a given point. It is the costs above 2.4 billion, and the 400 million for tolling to cover potential cost overruns that the state is already committed to, it is above 2.8 billion that the screw Seattle clause was inserted, and as the lawnerd pointed out, is not enforcable.
Thanks for the cogent analysis that has been so long missing.
I’m confident that this analysis was made available to our State legislators, who chose to ignore the illegality of the clause in order to gain political momentum for the tunnel. I find this to be among the most dishonest and cynical forms of legislating that I have witnessed in this State. I’m deeply disappointed in our State legislators and Executives who have essentially fooled the public into thinking this is a “done deal.”
@2 summarizes nicely why one reason this is terrible for Seattle.
But, back to the notion that this can simply be fixed in the Legislature. Ummm…it could have been simply fixed by the legislature LAST YEAR. Why wasn’t it? Because the State had no political will to pay for the tunnel cost overruns.
In other words, they didn’t have the votes to pass the legislation last year; what makes anyone think they’ll have the votes this year? WSDOT is mandated to provide us new numbers by year’s end. If those numbers rise, there will only need to be a change in the votes of 5 house members, and this legislation is dead.
McGinn understands this. He’s not clueless to the illegality of the clause. Those of us close enough to the issue have known all along that it is illegal. McGinn has merely been playing the game that the legislature mandated; asking who and how the tunnel will be paid for.
The funding for the tunnel is a complete house of cards, with a significant number of cards missing already. Seattle’s funding portion alone is tenuous at best. The Port does not have the 300 million it’s on the hook for. The tolling for the State’s $400 million is extremely tenuous. And, any cost overruns on any portion of this stresses the funding tremendously; as the City Council’s report today claimed, there’s likely no room for additional stress in this funding.
Now…here’s where the game the the powered elites in this State are playing gets really sinister. They are all trying to blame McGinn for the potential of delay and obstruction. But, all the while, they have been hiding the fact that they don’t have the funding. They simply don’t have it.
Cost overruns occur primarily due to politics. It is NOT McGinn who has played dirty politics here, it is the powered elites whose house of cards will tumble, all on its own, without any help from anyone else, who will be directly responsible for the delays in replacing the AWV.
That legislation is shameful.
You are close, I watched the Senate debate on TVW. There were plenty of dunderheads from outside of Seattle that were thrilled with the idea that they might get the chance to stick it to Seattle. Plenty if them hate Seattle, for fun and sport. And that, I do not think, McGinn “gets”. If he were to find a way to stop the law, it would be a couple years before a different solution, and the only part the state is able to pay for with gas tax money is the state road, nothing more.
There were a few that pointed out that they would be right back here (there) stripping this back out next year because it is not lawful, such provisions were not part of the Narrows bridge, tolling was, local road improvements apart from the bridge were local responsibility.
In the face of nearly insurmountable evidence many in this country choose to deny human caused climate change and oppose taking even minimal action to deal with it. Have anyone even asked what a ten foot rise in sea level would do to any of these projects? Since we live in a culture of denial, I choose to ignore the fact that eventually an earthquake will destroy the Alaska way viaduct. It’s been over eight years since the Nisqually earthquake, and the viaduct is still standing. It may stand for another ten years or even longer. I just don’t see the urgency to do anything. In these difficult times why MUST we spend anything on this project?
The state’s also constitutionally required to provide basic education. We all know how that turned out.
and the city of seattle as well as any other municipal corporation is a creature of state law. if the state legislature wanted to do away with the city of seattle, king county, sha, the port or any other jurisdiction, it could. does that effect the ability of the state to levy taxes on a specific geography to pay for a state improvement that specifically benefits that geography?
what i want to know is why FRANK CHOPP who represents the downtown waterfront property owners was pushing this when it negatively affects his constituents. i for one will NOT be voting for him in his next election, even if it means voting for a crazy person like goodspaceguy. i wish someone (anyone!) would publicly call out how frank chopp is totally crapping on his constituents.
Why must we do something? The next Nisqually quake could do significant damage. If there’s a Seattle Fault quake, everything will come down and/or go under, including most of the business district. It depends whether you want to pay to hopefully stave off more damage, sink billions into a tunnel and have an eventual demise of everything, or just hope nothing happens.
That has been my understanding all along. That is why, I believe, we will either:
1) Go with the surface option (complete with all of the other improvements proposed by the committee).
2) Build an elevated viaduct (the other proposal made by the committee).
3) Build a hole.
If the tunnel gets half-way done (is a hole) and it then becomes too expensive to build, then what? Sue the city? As you pointed out, the city doesn’t have to pay (the voters didn’t want to, after all). So, the city that has “freeway ramps to nowhere” will have a nice hole.
@10 Timothy says: “McGinn understands this. He’s not clueless to the illegality of the clause. Those of us close enough to the issue have known all along that it is illegal. McGinn has merely been playing the game that the legislature mandated; asking who and how the tunnel will be paid for.”
Yet this mayoral candidate has such integrity to run a campaign and distribute campaign literature saying “Why I Believe the deep-bore tunnel is a bad deal [...] 1. State law holds Seattle taxpayers responsible for ALL cost overruns – which could run into the billions.”
The man is disreputable and a charlatan. He is a green-washed manufactured candidate and a political insider that will continue the Nickels development frenzy.
@18
Are you drunk? You do realize Mallahan is far more beholden to the big local developers than McGinn. If you don’t belive me check the PDC filings and who is providing “advice” to the Mallahan campaign.
Timothy, that’s a helpful briefing. Maybe you’d help me out a little more. (Disclosure – I’m no powered elite member, hate Mallahan, and distrust McGinn, but I don’t miss elections and will have to vote for somebody.) You’re a McGinn supporter, so help me see what’s going on here:
Tonight during the Seattle Channel debate he repeated that “state law requires” Seattle to pay overruns. Pretty authoritative interpretation from a guy who’s let us know he’s a seasoned lawyer.
If McGinn is like you and was “close enough to the issue” to “have known all along” that the clause is illegal and unenforceable, upon what truthful basis has he been telling us voters the law actually has us on the hook?
And if instead McGinn was different from you and remained uncertain whether the clause had any legal power to put us on the hook, what was his truthful basis for telling us so positively all these weeks that it did?
Help me see how McGinn was honest with us clause-ignorant voters on this one.
@20 Gloomy…
McGinn’s right. State law currently holds Seattle responsible for the cost overruns.
Now, that such State law is likely unconstitutional does not negate that law unless such is challenged in a court and found to actually be in violation.
Additionally, even our Seattle Legislators have signed onto this clause. The game that is being played here is that the populace will just grow weary of the discussion, and in the end, agree to pay for anything. It has been the power of that thinking over the past year that has lulled a lot of people into the “it’s a done deal, let’s just move on” sentiment.
At this point, many people aren’t even critical of the agreement; hell, our City Council has just about completely signed on to paying the costs for a State-owned project. This is UNHEARD of in the history of this State.
McGinn is telling you the truth when he says that according to State law, we are on the hook for the costs.
Part of the analysis presented here on Publicola is being too clever by half. It is “wink and nod” legislation. Everyone knows it’s illegal, and just assumes it will get worked out “somehow.”
Will it? Because the legislature is gambling, they, and NOT McGinn, have put the entire project into jeopardy.
Oh…and btw? The title on this thread is misleading.
Cost overruns are not a myth.
pasted in below are two relevant sections of SB 5785 as signed by the governor.
The first explains that WSDOT is to provide a cost estimate in Jaunary 2010. There really is no cost estimate yet. The talk of cost over runs is premature.
The second has the cap on state contribution and the phrase placing the rest on Seattle area property tax payers who benefit…Adovcat omitted the word “area”.
That group of taxpayers is poorly identified. What is the Seattle area? The MSA? Downtown? Who benefits? Those who make bypass trips through downtown Seattle?
The passages explain that the highway desires of Olympia are not matched by their willingness to raise revenues. The stakeholder group and the technical staffs dicounted the deep bore as too costly. That is all McGinn has been pointing out. The key is the opportunity cost of the limited state funds. What is the best use for them?
The January deal of the three executives already seems voided by Olympia’s failure to grant the MVET to Transit. That is what Executive Sims seemed enthusiastic about at the press conference.
“(3) The department shall provide updated cost estimates for construction of the bored tunnel and also for the full Alaskan Way viaduct replacement project to the legislature and governor by January
29 1, 2010. The department must also consult with independent tunnel engineering experts to review the estimates and risk assumptions. The department shall not enter into a design-build contract for construction of the bored tunnel until the report in this section has been submitted.”
and
“(b) The state’s contribution shall not exceed two billion four hundred million dollars. If costs exceed two billion four hundred million dollars, no more than four hundred million of the additional costs shall be financed with toll revenue. Any costs in excess of two billion eight hundred million dollars shall be borne by property owners in the Seattle area who benefit from replacement of the existing viaduct with the deep bore tunnel.”
I am really missing something – can someone help me.
If the deep bore tunnel (DBT) has no downtown exits then all the traffic into downtown comes into the core on city streets or I-5.
If there is no DBT and no viaduct then traffic comes into downtown through the city or from I-5.
Ideally, the north portal deals with the Mercer mess. The south portal helps freight.
If I don’t drive a truck and have no business in the South Lake Union area why would I want a tunnel and as a State citizen why do I want to pay for it?
Thanks, Timothy. (That was quick!)
If I understand both your posts, you seem to suggest that McGinn’s always known the clause to be illegal, and has always been truthful in his basic premise: “State law says,” etc.
Reading that got me wondering about all the instances where he’s run pretty far with that rhetorical ball, though, and now it’s another pickle altogether.
An example: a couple weeks ago he released a statement to voters saying that because of the overrun clause, “Seattle taxpayers could be drained for years, if not decades.”
It seems to me that based on what he knew about the clause’s illegality he could have added “…if for some reason nobody files the suit that everybody (but you, voter) knows will certainly have the clause recognized as the unconstitutional piece of crap we all (but you don’t) know it is. So don’t panic, your purses are in no actual danger from it.”
If he’s as aware as all of you that it’s a bogus provision, I wish he’d just come out and acknowledge the unconsitutionality and, you know, he could try to rally voters by vowing to file that suit overturning it. That’d be using everything he knows about this. He acts like he’ll be protecting voters from this amazing threat, but if he knows the threat to be empty couldn’t he as well make a little hay out of that, poke fun at the legislature for trying it at all, play the smart lawyer who’ll put the courts to their proper use and make the clause disappear?
It seems as though the only way McGinn’s rhetoric could be in line with his beliefs is if he really does think the clause has a fighting chance to survive a constitutional challenge. But if your description of his thinking is correct, he does not hold that opinion at all.
I’m left to conclude McGinn had to have made a conscious decision to not reveal his knowledge of the illegality of the clause to voters, so that he could further fuel our pocketbook fear. I respect that you might be willing to accept that to get your guy in office, but it’s hard for me to swallow. Ends justifying means and all that.
At this point, I fear some amazing scandal has to come out for me to vote without crossing my fingers. Again, thanks for being willing to help.
gloomy…
I’ve heard McGinn say on several occasions that the clause is likely illegal.
But, as I pointed out, who knows if a court will actually side with the legal arguments? For example, I thought that it was a given that the open records provisions in State Law were pretty solid; little did I know that a Bush appointed Judge would determine that R-71 signatures should be considered “anonymous political speech” and bar the release of those signatures.
Right now, we have a situation wherein the vast majority of our elected officials are supporting a law that would put Seattle on the hook for cost overruns. They are determined that the tunnel goes through. Who knows what their friends the judges may do?
But, I guess I don’t get your animosity toward McGinn. OK, so you may not like him. But, you seem to be intent on finding some reason why HE’s the one in the tunnel discussion you should be upset with? Why? That makes no sense.
If you don’t like the situation were all in, why not put your ire on those who’ve created that situation?
Hi lawnerd,
Your legal analysis is wrong on a key point. You cite article XI, section 12 for the proposition that “the State cannot impose a tax on local taxpayers,” but that’s not what that section of the constitution means. As the text of the section indicates, the state may not levy taxes for “for county, city, town, or other municipal purposes.” In other words, the state may not tax for local purposes, such as police.
But nothing in the state constitution limits the state’s inherent power to tax for state purposes. One example of the state levying taxes on the “inhabitants or property” in a municipality is the property tax in support of public schools, a tax encoded into law at RCW 84.52.065. That tax has been challenged in court as a violation of article XI, section 12, but the state Supreme Court upheld the tax in Sator v. Dep’t of Revenue, 89 Wn.2d 338 (1977), available at http://www.mrsc.org/mc/supreme/archive/089wn2d/089wn2d0338.htm. The court was clear that state taxes for state purposes are perfectly lawful: “while we have held it is violative of article 11, section 12, to impose a state tax for local purposes, we have clearly stated the state may impose a state tax for state purposes.”
Also, if your conclusion is correct and the cost-overruns provision of the tunnel law is unconstitutional, then a question arises whether the entire tunnel law is void. Your analysis doesn’t address this question. Usually, when a part of a statute is unconstitutional, the state supreme court throws out the whole thing unless there was a severability clause saying that the constitutional parts of the statute should remain if the any portion is found unconstitutional. The court makes this point in many cases, and one is In re Parentage of C.A.M.A., 154 Wash.2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 (2005). There is a strong legal argument that the whole tunnel law should be struck down.
@25
Ultimately, the legality of the law isn’t the point.
What matters is the politics reflected by the law.
The cost-overruns clause represents the political reality that the Legislature might not actually appropriate the money (which hasn’t happened as far as I know) unless the City enters a binding agreement regarding cost overruns. Does anyone really think the tunnel law would have passed if the cost overruns provision hadn’t been there? Of course not.
@8 I’ve never heard or read an argument from the no-tunnel side the way you describe it. The argument that I’ve heard and one I support is that the tunnel misplaces BILLIONS of dollars that can be better spent in truly progressive and sustainable ways.
Simple measures like removing parking from sections of key arterials such as Elliott Ave/15th Ave and Eastlake Ave. can improve the flow of traffic. A plus if some lanes can be rapid bus/commercial truck lanes.
Olympia, King Co. and Seattle have a credibility crisis in so much “green talk” but so little “green walk” especially when it really counts.
The financing problem of a west-edge environmentally progressive rapid transit plan should have been corrected and a project built. Instead it was altogether killed. That left us with no mobility option in place when time for viaduct demolition.
Now many of the same people who obstructed and starved progressive and sustainable alternatives are crying Carmageddon if they don’t get their tunnel.
Will we do the right thing?
@22
There is a point here, it reaches the wrong conclusion, but there is a point.
Cost overruns are not a myth, but they are assumed in the risk mitigation of 400 million more in tolling beyond the 2.4 billion tunnel costs.
Much of this discussion assumes cost overruns of the tunnel (2.4 b) to be more than the already approved 400 million in more tolling.
If the tunnel costs 2.79 billion then this thread is moot, as is ÓBrian McGinn’s candidacies.
Mr. Baker…are you a betting man? What odds would you give, at this point, that there won’t be cost overruns? But, more importantly, if there are cost overruns, who should pay?
McGinn & Obrien are not single-issue candidates. A simple analysis of their continued work in Seattle over the past 10 years or more corrects this fallacy.
To the contrary, Mallahan is ONLY viable due to those who think the only important issue is to safeguard the tunnel. In other words, Mallahan is the truly single-issue candidate in this race.
BTW…KUDOS TO PUBLICOLA FOR THIS THREAD!
Thanks to both Advokat, and subsequently Lawfriend, who have provided some of the best analysis of this deal that I have read in any medium over the past year.
Why has this discussion not happened in the Press? Even Lindblom’s article in the Times this morning is so simplified as to make it meaningless.
If “Advokat” is an expereinced tax, public financing, or state constitutional lawyer, i’d appreciate him or her disclosing that.
Otherwise, as a former practicing litigator, I have doubts about accepting his/her analysis uncritically.
There is a reason courts hear from both sides. If you read the opening brief, and aren’t convinced, then the advocate hasn’t done a good job. But there is more briefing. There is another side to the story.
The REAL reason there will be cost overruns is that the DBT was initially supposed to cost billions more. That’s why the shareholder committee rejected it. Then the proponents magically waved fairy dust over the project and reduced the cost of the project to a size that the power structure thought they could ram down our throats.
And we have no idea how the issue will be resolved after it’s been fully briefed by the big money lawyers downtown, and appealed to a state Supreme Court that may, by that time, have been packed with a couple BIAW financed justices.
So McGinn isn’t being disingenuous when he says both (1) it’s illegal, and (2) if we are stuck with cost overruns, we will be strapped for a decade.
What is disingenuous is the “we’ve been talking about this for 8 years canard.” We’ve talked about surface and transit for 8 years. We’ve talked about a rebuild for 8 years. We talked about a cut and cover tunnel for a few years. the DEEP BORE TUNNEL was a last minute idea, barely 2 years old, rejected by the shareholders group. And the engineering is, at best, 10-15% done.
Lawfriend @ 27,
That is were the uniformity requirements of the constitution kick in. The state can impose tax for state purposes, but can’t impose tax on Seattle taxpayers only for a state purpose. The rate differentials around the state for things like sales tax, property tax, real estate excise tax and the like are a function of local taxes being imposed locally in addition to the state taxes (which are imposed uniformly). For example, the supreme court has held that the legislature’s attempt to impose state sales tax at different rates in different locations in the state was unconstitutional. Bond v. Burrows, 103 Wn.2d 153, 690 P2d 1168 (1984).
Timothy, thanks for your point of view. You’re right, I hold McGinn to a much higher standard than I ever would Smilin’ Joe M. Mike claims my environmental values, and is trying to become mayor using bits of them to suit his purposes. Whenever he uses standard politician moves – rabblerousing, spindoctoring and fear – to stir support. he contradicts the spirit of rational inquiry that’s brought environmentalism to the fore. He seems not at all reluctant to stoop to that level.
Everybody’s now co-opting green values right and left, but the truth of them has survived pretty well so far. To the extent McGinn and a lot of his supporters seem to delight at the prospect of wielding those values as a club to settle old scores against some ill-defined conspiratorial elite, I can’t buy into it.
And on a more prosaic level, I can’t shake the sense that both candidates are working out their midlife crises by aiming for City Hall. Each tried one path when young, didn’t do very well at it, so tried something different. McGinn wound up finally able to run a show himself by starting Great City, Mallahan got to boss around his little corner of a conglomerate. But it didn’t really satisfy them. Both hit their age last year with unfulfilled expectations weighing heavy.
Instead of a mistress or a sports car, they decided to run for mayor.
So yeah, overall, just trying to stay vigilant and keep the stars from my eyes over here.
@29
Ask the businesses along Aurora Ave from Green Lake on up North how that has killed business and the jobs with them.
@Timothy,
how much will the assumed cost overruns be?
The state has 1.9 b for the tunnel, and 400 m for the tunnel in tolling, and then another 400 m approval for tolling the tunnel if the first 1.9+.4 is not enough.
Here is today’s SeaTimes story on all the claims.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2010081563_tunnelclaims17m.html
@34
improving methods is not “magic”
B @35
Yes, you are right the uniformity requirement of article VII, section 1, but I never said the uniformity requirement didn’t apply. I said only that lawnerd is wrong about the meaning of article XI, section 12. The state can levy taxes for state purposes, provided that the state complies with other constitutional requirements, such as the uniformity requirement.
I wonder if the state legislature can levy an assessment. I don’t know the answer. I know that article VII, section 9 has never been construed by the courts as a limitation on the state’s ability to grant the authority to levy assessments to counties and specialized municipal corporations, such as irrigation districts, even these local government entities aren’t mentioned in the text of article VII, section 9. I also know that an assessment is not a “tax” within the meaning of article VII, section 1, so the uniformity requirement doesn’t apply.
So, B, do you know if the state legislature may levy an assessment for a state road project that specially benefits an identifiable class of properties?
Do you know if the state can levy an assessment?
Very misleading post.
First, the point made by McGinn and other advocates against the tunnel is that it’s founded on a clause imposing overruns on Seattle (or wrose, a subset of Seattle) so EITHER that comes to pass — bad for us in Seattle — OR the whole tunnel program is built on an INHERENT CONFLICT THUS MAKING THE “PLAN” FOR THE dbt A TOTAL CHARADE.
thd conflict is the State truly swants to capi at $2.8 billion and there wouldn’t be the votes for the State to take all cost overruns. This is in conflict with the city politicians like Nickels supporting the program, who want this clause declared illegal.
There are other aspects of this conflict as well.
what kind of contractor contract and bonds can be issued based on an illegal law?
based on the inherent uncertainty of a court battle over language like this?
The case can take 2-3 years. Buyers of bonds don’t like uncertainty…they just won’t buy the bonds. The contractor will put the onus of overruns on the State for sure, they will make sure that’s clear in the contract, but if they do, then they’ve just insisted on a contract that is illegal under current Washington law! So like the WPPS disaster years ago, they would find their contract unenforceable! And lose big time. so they have no out unless the law is changed.
And as commentors noted, there weren’t the votes to change this , this was an integral part of the fake deal.
The end result is there is no actual plan for the tunnel that can move forward. And “concluding” that a law is unenforceable doesn’t destroy a myth about the DBT tunnel but only CONFIRMS it’s not even “on the table” or “decided” or “ready to move forward” or any of that nonsense….in fact that so many officials and legislators would sigin onto to an ILLEGAL DEAL should tip you off….they can’t figure out a LEGAL DEAL that’s politically feasible.
So it is the DBT tunnel proponents who are the pie in the sky dreamers, while McGinn is the practical efficient manager dude with a feasible vision.
So in the end your legal analysis is fine but your political conclusion is upside down. In fact, the illegality of this clause is and has been the main point all along! The DBT has a deeply flawed foundation that cannot stand.