Chopp: "Good News" That McGinn Opposes Tunnel Too

By Erica C. Barnett, Tuesday, December 1, 2009 at 12:24 PM
View Comments

This item was originally posted yesterday. State Sen. Ed Murray weighed in today, so we’ve updated it (again) and moved it up.

PubliCola had a conversation with state House speaker Frank Chopp yesterday about the upcoming legislative session. When we asked him whether Seattle Mayor-Elect Mike McGinn’s opposition to the downtown tunnel would shift the debate about the tunnel in Olympia, Chopp chuckled.

“Mayor-Elect McGinn and I have both been in agreement opposed to the tunnel. We don’t think it’s a good idea. That’s one of the topics we decided to talk about the next time we get together. We didn’t get into specifics, but we said we’re both opposed to that deep-bore tunnel. I find it good news that we’re both in agreement.”

Last session, Chopp supported legislation putting Seattle on the hook for any cost overruns on the tunnel and limiting the state’s contribution to $2.4 billion. (“That [provision] was the only reason that [tunnel funding] bill passed,” he says.)

State Senator Ed Murray, however, disagrees. Murray told PubliCola the tunnel legislation “passed despite the language sticking it to Seattle taxpayers. At one point the Governor had to talk me out of killing the viaduct bill (my bill) because without the House language Frank would have killed it.”

Murray added, “If there is a federal transportation stimulus package with this [cost overrun] language those dollars won’t be coming to Seattle.”

McGinn initially made opposition to the tunnel the centerpiece of his campaign, then amended his position, saying he would not “stand in the way” of the tunnel.

Through an email from transition team staffer Aaron Pickus, McGinn told PubliCola, “It’s no secret that I think the deep-bore tunnel is a horrible idea.  As I stated after the City Council voted 9-0 to support the tunnel, as mayor I could not disregard the position taken by the Council.  However, responsibility for cost overruns was not addressed by the City Council and it needs to be resolved before proceeding with the tunnel.”

  • ivan
    @ 34:

    Who's a professional reporter?
  • Seattle Resident
    @33. True. That Stakeholder Advisory Committee did not make the two recommendations. They weren't allowed to; that wasn't their charge.

    @33's answer sounds cynical, but is correct. This advisory board was designed to keep people at a table. Not really "the" table, but a table, so they'd be easier to deal with.

    @everybody Considering the audience of Publicola, it is surprising how many errors of fact are in these comments by those whom otherwise sound knowledgeable. Thank god for professional reporters!
  • Francis
    @30 that's because things like the "stakeholder advisory group" are just holding pens to keep constituents and interest groups occupied. Name one of those things that hasn't been ignored.
  • sarah68
    @ 29: Tax reform? Oh no, we can't talk about that. It's a short session this year and we've got the budget to worry about, and anyway, the two have nothing to do with each other.
  • Matt
    There is an extremely selfish motive behind Frank Chopp's opposition to the SR 99 bored tunnel, which is his failure to get a west side tunnel for the 520 project.

    His constituents, who reside on the west side of the SR 520 floating bridge, have been pushing for a tunnel at the Montlake / Pacific interchange for years. However, this option adds about $2 billion to the 520 project, which is already facing a huge funding gap.

    Chopp has been unsuccessful in persuading other state leaders to choose the more expensive tunnel option for 520, and as a result, he is trying to hold the SR 99 tunnel hostage.

    Don't be fooled by Chopp's rhetoric, his reason for opposing the SR 99 tunnel is purely selfish so that he can keep his 520 constituents happy.
  • RossB
    @18 -- Good Point. While both Chopp and McGinn hate the tunnel, they support very different solutions. Hmmmm, where have I heard that before? I know, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee! You know, the folks who actually sat down, did the hard work and came up with the proposed solutions (2 of them, actually). Incoming city council member Mike O'Brien had a great little entry about this: http://obrienforseattle.com/2009/05/public-voic...

    O'Brien makes clear that he wants a surface option, but he also makes clear that it wouldn't have been so bad to get a viaduct (the other option). His main complaint (a rather valid one, in my opinion) is that the votes of the people and the stake holders were ignored when the tunnel idea was pushed.
  • Trevor
    I hope you also interviewed Chopp about tax reform?
  • Yes, McGinn must hope for failure in estimating and then have the city eat the cost on stopping the project.
  • "naïve" or not, my larger point is that the time to explore and debate that as an option was when I wrote that, more than a year ago, not two months ago.
    Another point is that I was not running for mayor.
    Lastly, the current plan is and was out of his hands long before the Primary (sometime in late April).

    At this point I think the tunnel, that will last 100 years will eventually have to be supplimented with a surface option that carries lots of mass transit. The state has already agreed to one, and doing them in reverse order is very unlikely.
    It is "fun" to think about a city without cars, but not so fun to think of the city not having the means to move people and goods.

    The answer is eventually both, and light rail. The question just has to be asked in the framework of 100 years, and not a 5 month campaign cycle.
  • Andrew
    Looks like WSDOT has short-listed 4 teams for the AWV tunnel: http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/archiv...

    Anybody who has interest in stopping the tunnel will have to contend with claims from these teams (to compensate them for their efforts). McGinn is savvy enough to recognize which battles to fight. He will focus on making sure cost overruns are kept to a minimum to reduce fiscal risk to the City. When he switched his position, he knew he had the "anti-tunnel" vote in the bag anyways...
  • Fed Up
    Oh god. Chopp must go NOW! We keep reopening this can of worms and we are going to end up with the worst possible solution, some form of an elevated structure. (And hopefully we end up with a solution before it’s too late!) As I recall the citizens crushed the tunnel option but more narrowly defeated the rebuild. It is the path of least resistance. “(J)ust building a broad road, with a few (timed) stop lights, and crosswalks. Why does it have to be 40 feet in the air, or 150 feet under ground under the train tunnel” seems pretty naïve. Any ground-only solution that begins to do its share of replacing the load currently handled by the viaduct will end up being another monstrosity that separates downtown from the waterfront. Unfortunately, Seattle needs another significant north/south thoroughfare to “compliment” I5 (which brilliantly collapses to 2 lanes as you approach the city northbound). Stick the damn thing underground. And all of us property owners, whether we live in some fancy new downtown condo or in West Seattle as I do need, need to get over ourselves and pay the damn tax. Just consider it part of the cost of being so blessed as to own property.
  • Marge
    @ 22 Nice acknowledgement that you were wrong: the state law clearly says property owners the Seattle area who benefit, not Seattle, will pay for tunnel cost over runs.

    It would be nice to hear a similar acknowledgement from the Mayor-Elect. Now that the campaign is over surely he will ramp down the selective fact avoidance he thought was required to get people to vote for him.

    It would have been nicer still if any form of media, new to old, would have bothered to fact check BS statements by all candidates in this last election and report on their results.
  • 18. My comment #6 says hi, Chop Chopp.
  • Timothy
    @17 Francis...

    Doh! You're right, and I knew it, but misspoke. Sorry about that.

    What I was thinking as I was responding much too quickly was that it doesn't specify Property owners who live near the tunnel or the waterfront; that any and all property owners in Seattle could be on the hook.

    So, you're right on that point, and I knew it, but it's been a long day and I got muddled. :-)

    To that point...a while I ago I created a petition allowing any Seattle property owners who think they benefit from the tunnel to pledge to pay for the cost overruns. You can see it here:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tunneltax/
  • sarah68
  • @18, somebody made some meaningful points in that Choppaduct story:

    Posted Thu, Sep 25, 11:09 p.m. [2008]
    The current bad situation made worse: 1. Chopp is too late.
    2. The solution explores the worst of all solutions and then covers it in ocular platitudes. A viaduct, a park up in the sky, a sink pipe in rain city, wrapped in retail shopping. Did he run out of crap to include?
    3. What is the return on investment for the tax payer?
    4. How about we just building a broad road, with a few (timed) stop lights, and crosswalks. Why does it have to be 40 feet in the air, or 150 feet under ground under the train tunnel?
    5. The fact that Chopp has enough power to do something this elaborate, and stupid, is the most terrible detail of all.

    — Mr Baker


    both are now too late for this phase. It falls or not, on its own.
  • hmmmm
    RE @17: and which of those "property owners" are in the process of cozying up to McGinn as we speak? Liebman? Stagen? Allen? Or will they simeply speak to McGinn through their mouthpieces on the council, knowing full well that media in town refuses to report on anything that is orchestrated from more then one degree of separation?

    Hey McGinn supporters: did you know that if you are sitting at the poker table, and you can't find the sucker, then there's a pretty good chance that it's you?
  • Chop Chopp
    Only Mr. Baker @1 seems to have picked up on the irony of McGinn and Chopp being "in agreement" on the tunnel. Both have diametrically opposite views of what they would like to do about the viaduct.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend only until the original enemy is gone, then friend become the enemy, and the civil war starts.
  • Francis
    @14, You're right on one point, absolutely wrong on another.
    It makes sense that the state can't mandate a city LID.
    But that's missing the point. The point of this amendment is a message to the city that the state won't pay any more than it's stated share.
    Here's where you're completely wrong: The amendment does IN FACT "specifically say property owners."
    Quoting:
    "... 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."
    Here's a link to the amendment:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-...

    The number of people who haven't even read the bill on this topic is staggering. You appear to be one of them.
  • McGinn nailed it.


    I nailed it too, I still didn't vote for the guy.
    No matter who was going to be mayor there was a pretty good chance that the agreement made by 3 people is missing 2 of the 3 will fall. It just does not matter which powerless executive filled the chair.

    That said, there were better ways to go about communicating this than "I'm going to stop it" campaign talk. Remember, when he stopped talking like a jackass he won the race. Maybe he needed to act like a jackass to get attention in the first place. Still, campaigning against something many people still in power worked for in the way he did will extend beyond the viaduct replacement.
    So, no matter if it does or doesn't get built (something he has very limited power over, even as the actual mayor) he has stepped on many ties to be "right" about a fairly obvious and possible outcome.
  • Pete
    @9-11, Sure, the City (and Port) have taxing authority, but I recommend not holding your breath for an LID to cover DBT overruns. I could see the council and commission funding other aspects of the project (seawall, street improvements) through LIDs, but the overruns have become such a huge issue that I don't see the city (with anti-tunnel mayor) or Port coming to the rescue should the project exceed projected costs.

    And I think that Chopp and McGinn make pretty wierd bedfellows. This is surely a convenient alliance. As @1 says, Chopp supports a rebuild (which has little-spoken-of overrun risks of its own). McGinn just wants the tear-down.
  • Timothy
    @11 Francis etc...

    The problem is, the State cannot mandate a local LID. Period. Look it up. What we have with the State legislation is that the State is mandating that some amorphous group of Seattleites (no, it doesn't specifically say property owners) who benefit will pay for cost overruns. So, who gets to decide who benefits?

    But, the entire flaw with your statements and the citations is that the STATE CANNOT MANDATE AN LID. Look it up.
  • ratcityreprobate
    Unless the County and Contractors can figure out how to get the broken down boring machines out of the Brightwater tunnel, repaired and back at work there will never be another tunnel bored in this state. The size of the cost overrun on that fiasco will also go a long way to determining if the downtown tunnel is ever started.
  • Meanwhile, the CityStream Council edition this past week had the outgoing and incoming Transportation subcommittee chair saying that the council has vote and they are "moving on".

    Chopp was against the tunnel, and he, too, would not stand in the way.

    Two years of fighting, min, followed by everybody holding hands on the Choppaduct, or, surface option?
    Good luck with that.
  • Francis
    And lastly, to the political question -- whether a government entity would raise taxes on a set of developers:
    Property owners there would see the worth of their formerly-welded-to-the-viaduct buildings jump so greatly that any tax increases would be eaten up by the cash they can rake in selling those buildings.
    Shit, a few might push for it just to make sure the thing gets done. They ain't gonna pay the new rate if someone buys them out anyway.
    That's the point of a LID.
  • Francis
    In addition, here's a cite to the specific tunnel-building taxing authority granted to cities:

    RCW 35.85.050
    ... Whenever it is desired to pay the whole or any portion of the cost and expense of any such improvement by special assessments, the council or other legislative body of such city shall, in the ordinance ordering such improvement, fix and establish the boundaries of the improvement district, the property in which is to bear such assessment, which district shall include as near as may be all the property specially benefited by such improvement.

    Here's a link:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35...

    As for the amount, that wouldn't be an extra $750K or whatever. It would work the same way every other tax of this kind works: to finance long-term debt.

    So, the city or port or whomever raises taxes in the LID high enough to allow it to pay off a certain dollar amount of bonds in about 30 years.

    Then they sell the bonds to get the cash now. This should sound familiar.
  • Francis
    @7 It's just a basic principle of law that the government can create taxing districts.
    It doesn't have to ask permission every time. If that were the case, they'd only be formed rarely.

    But if you want code cites, I'll give you code cites. Sheesh.

    RCW 35.43.040
    Authority generally.

    Whenever the public interest or convenience may require, the legislative authority of any city or town may order the whole or any part of any local improvement ... and may levy and collect special assessments on property specially benefited thereby to pay the whole or any part of the expense thereof.

    As for the uniformity clause, that deals with taxes on a class of property. So everything within a LID has to be taxed at the same rate. But the clause doesn't prohibit LIDs, obviously, since they ALREADY EXIST.
  • Perfect Voter
    Yes; re "Those people don’t have to vote for a LID. The government can impose one in some circumstances", citations please, to the RCW.

    And Oren @4, you are right on the money. My strategy for McGinn from the get-go. Lay off the tunnel and let the project collapse on its own. sorta like the monorail did, but before costing taxpayers a couple hundred million $.
  • quibble quibble
    @3 citation please. to law.
    and if you got one, ahem, more quibbling....

    because

    "the government" -- huh?
    You mean the mayor?
    Uh, so actually he DOES have the power to stop it?
    You mean the city council, so dependent on developer contributions, you think they will impose a risk of all overruns on a few hundred owners and developers?
    or you think they will impose this risk on a broader subset of Seattleites?
    not likely.

    you think the state can just impose an LID on a subset of Seattelites and give them a billion dollars or so of liability without their say so? really?
    what law is that by the way?
    taxes have to be uniform....

    and btw
    show us some math.
    If I live in Newmark tower and am part owner of that downtown site, um, will I be on the hook for an extra $100,000 on top of my condo mortgage for $300,000? Or will it be only $75,000? Will it be one milllliiooon dollars?
    Either way, I am most likely to raise holy hell on any politician in "the government" who assigns that liability to me.

    conclusion, yet again, yawn;
    there is no plan for a DBT. This is the meaning of Chopp's statement. It's a kool aid plan. it's a dream mirage built on sand. it's a popular delusion.

    McGinn nailed it.
  • Wait, so Chopp supported the overrun provision in an attempt to troll tunnel supporters and sabotage the project?

    Let's also keep in mind the reason he didn't support the tunnel is because he wanted to rebuild the viaduct on the waterfront with a giant mini-mall sandwiched between the decks.
  • Francis
    @3 Those people don't have to vote for a LID. The government can impose one in some circumstances. I believe other commenters on the issue have pointed out the Port of Seattle has this authority already.
  • Oren
    I figure McGinn thinks the tunnel initiative will collapse of its own impracticality and cost without him having to lead an explicit charge. At least I hope that's the case.
  • quibble quibble
    1. if the LID is narrowly drawn to be just nearby properties, they won't vote for it. WAAAY too much risk for a few hundred evelopers and owners.

    2. if the LID is broadly drawn, say to include all of Queen Anne and half of Fremont, watever, they won't vote for it. Their reaction will be WTF are you kidding me?

    3. Chop: votes for laws he does not support. chuckle, chuckle, the insiders have so much insiderish fun.

    4. as stated: thw whole thing is built on a flawed political deal that is a mirage. Kastama isin the Times today saying he will clarify the Seattle obligation to be on the hook. PRetty soon he will start fighting with Chopp I guess, since Chopp actually opposes this notion....their coalition is going to fall apart.....

    McGinn nailed it.
  • Francis
    Again - It's not "Seattle" that's on the hook for overruns under that language.
    It's a Local Improvement District that hasn't been created yet. The amendment language plainly targets owners of property which see an increase in value because of the viaduct replacement.
    That's different than "Seattle" having to pay. Some of those property owners might not even live in Seattle.
blog comments powered by Disqus